Author G. K. Chesterton “loved the Book of Job”

“The first of the intellectual beauties of the book of Job is that it is all concerned with this desire to know the actuality; the desire to know what is, and not merely what seems”. Introduction to the Book of Job The modern habit of saying, "This is my opinion, but I may be wrong" is entirely irrational. The book of Job is among the other Old Testament books both a philosophical riddle and a historical riddle. It is the philosophical riddle that concerns us in such an introduction as this; so we may dismiss first the few words of general explanation or warning which should be said about the historical aspect. Controversy has long raged about which parts of this epic belong to its original scheme and which are interpolations of considerably later date. The doctors disagree, as it is the business of doctors to do; but upon the whole the trend of investigation has always been in the direction of maintaining that the parts interpolated, if any, were the prose prologue and epilogue, and possibly the speech of the young man who comes in with an apology at the end. I do not profess to be competent to decide such questions. But whatever decision the reader may come to concerning them, there is a general truth to be remembered in this connection. When you deal with any ancient artistic creation, do not suppose that it is anything against it that it grew gradually. The book of Job may have grown gradually just as Westminster Abbey grew gradually. But the people who made the old folk poetry, like the people who made Westminster Abbey, did not attach that importance to the actual date and the actual author, that importance which is entirely the creation of the almost insane individualism of modern times. We may put aside the case of Job, as one complicated with religious difficulties, and take any other, say the case of the Iliad. Many people have maintained the characteristic formula of modern skepticism, that Homer was not written by Homer, but by another person of the same name. Just in the same way many have maintained that Moses was not Moses but another person called Moses. But the thing really to be remembered in the matter of the Iliad is that if other people did interpolate the passages, the thing did not create the same sense of shock as would be created by such proceedings in these individualistic times. The creation of the tribal epic was to some extent regarded as a tribal work, like the building of the tribal temple. Believe then, if you will, that the prologue of Job and the epilogue and the speech of Elihu are things inserted after the original work was composed. But do not suppose that such insertions have that obvious and spurious character which would belong to any insertions in a modern, individualistic book . . . Without going into questions of unity as understood by the scholars, we may say of the scholarly riddle that the book has unity in the sense that all great traditional creations have unity; in the sense that Canterbury Cathedral has unity. And the same is broadly true of what I have called the philosophical riddle. There is a real sense in which the book of Job stands apart from most of the books included in the canon of the Old Testament. But here again those are wrong who insist on the entire absence of unity. Those are wrong who maintain that the Old Testament is a mere loose library; that it has no consistency or aim. Whether the result was achieved by some supernal sprirtual truth, or by a steady national tradition, or merely by an ingenious selection in aftertimes, the books of the Old Testament have a quite perceptible unity. . . The central idea of the great part of the Old Testament may be called the idea of the loneliness of God. God is not the only chief character of the Old Testament; God is properly the only character in the Old Testament. Compared with His clearness of purpose, all the other wills are heavy and automatic, like those of animals; compared with His actuality, all the sons of flesh are shadows. Again and again the note is struck, “With whom hath He taken counsel?” (Isa. 40:14). “I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the peoples there was no man with me” (Isa. 63:3). All the patriarchs and prophets are merely His tools or weapons; for the Lord is a man of war. He uses Joshua like an axe or Moses like a measuring rod. For Him, Samson, is only a sword and Isaiah a trumpet. The saints of Christianity are supposed to be like God, to be, as it were, little statuettes of Him. The Old Testament hero is no more supposed to be of the same nature as God than a saw or a hammer is supposed to be of the same shape as the carpenter. This is the main key and characteristic of Hebrew scriptures as a whole. There are, indeed, in those scriptures innumerable instances of the sort of rugged humor, keen emotion, and powerful individuality which is never wanting in great primitive prose and poetry. Nevertheless the main characteristic remains: the sense not merely that God is stronger than man, not merely that God is more secret than man, but that He means more, that He knows better what He is doing, that compared with Him we have something of the vagueness, the unreason, and the vagrancy of the beasts that perish. “It is He that sitteth above the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers” (Isa.40:22). We might almost put it thus. The book is so intent upon asserting the personality of God that it almost asserts the impersonality of man. Unless this gigantic cosmic brain has conceived a thing, that thing is insecure and void; man has not enough tenacity to ensure its continuance. “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain” (Ps. 127:1). Everywhere else, then, the Old Testament positively rejoices in the obliteration of man in comparison with the divine purpose. The book of Job stands definitely alone because the book of Job definitely asks, “But what is the purpose of God? Is it worth the sacrifice even of our miserable humanity? Of course, it is easy enough to wipe out our own paltry wills for the sake of a will that is grander and kinder. But is it grander and kinder? Let God use His tools; let God break His tools. But what is He doing, and what are they being broken for?” It is because of this question that we have to attack as a philosophical riddle the riddle of the book of Job. The present importance of the book of Job cannot be expressed adequately even by saying that it is the most interesting of ancient books. We may almost say of the book of Job that it is the most interesting of modern books. In truth, of course, neither of the two phrases covers the matter, because fundamental human religion and fundamental human irreligion are both at once old and new; philosophy is either eternal or it is not philosophy. The modern habit of saying “This is my opinion, but I may be wrong” is entirely irrational. If I say that it may be wrong, I say that is not my opinion. The modern habit of saying “Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me” – the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon. The first of the intellectual beauties of the book of Job is that it is all concerned with this desire to know the actuality; the desire to know what is, and not merely what seems. If moderns were writing the book, we should probably find that Job and his comforters got on quite well together by the simple operation of referring their differences to what is called the temperament, saying that the comforters were by nature “optimists” and Job by nature a “pessimist.” And they would be quite comfortable, as people can often be, for some time at least, by agreeing to say what is obviously untrue. For if the word “pessimist” means anything at all, then emphatically Job is not a pessimist. His case alone is sufficient to refute the modern absurdity of referring everything to physical temperament. Job does not in any sense look at life in a gloomy way. If wishing to be happy and being quite ready to be happy constitutes an optimist, Job is an optimist. He is a perplexed optimist; he is an exasperated optimist; he is an outraged and insulted optimist. He wishes the universe to justify itself, not because he wishes it be caught out, but because he really wishes it be justified. He demands an explanation from God, but he does not do it at all in the spirit in which [John] Hampden might demand an explanation from Charles I. He does it in the spirit in which a wife might demand an explanation from her husband whom she really respected. He remonstrates with his Maker because he is proud of his Maker. He even speaks of the Almighty as his enemy, but he never doubts, at the back of his mind, that his enemy has some kind of a case which he does not understand. In a fine and famous blasphemy he says, “Oh, that mine adversary had written a book!” (31:35). It never really occurs to him that it could possibly be a bad book. He is anxious to be convinced, that is, he thinks that God could convince him. In short, we may say again that if the word optimist means anything (which I doubt), Job is an optimist. He shakes the pillars of the world and strikes insanely at the heavens; he lashes the stars, but it is not to silence them; it is to make them speak. In the same way we may speak of the official optimists, the comforters of Job. Again, if the word pessimist means anything (which I doubt), the comforters of Job may be called pessimists rather than optimists. All that they really believe is not that God is good but that God is so strong that it is much more judicious to call Him good. It would be the exaggeration of censure to call them evolutionists; but they have something of the vital error of the evolutionary optimist. They will keep on saying that everything in the universe fits into everything else; as if there were anything comforting about a number of nasty things all fitting into each other. We shall see later how God in the great climax of the poem turns this particular argument altogether upside down. When, at the end of the poem, God enters (somewhat abruptly), is struck the sudden and splendid note which makes the thing as great as it is. All the human beings through the story, and Job especially, have been asking questions of God. A more trivial poet would have made God enter in some sense or other in order to answer the questions. By a touch truly to be called inspired, when God enters, it is to ask a number of questions on His own account. In this drama of skepticism God Himself takes up the role of skeptic. He does what all the great voices defending religion have always done. He does, for instance, what Socrates did. He turns rationalism against itself. He seems to say that if it comes to asking questions, He can ask some question which will fling down and flatten out all conceivable human questioners. The poet by an exquisite intuition has made God ironically accept a kind of controversial equality with His accusers. He is willing to regard it as if it were a fair intellectual duel: “Gird up now thy loins like man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me” (38:3). The everlasting adopts an enormous and sardonic humility. He is quite willing to be prosecuted. He only asks for the right which every prosecuted person possesses; he asks to be allowed to cross-examine the witness for the prosecution. And He carries yet further the corrections of the legal parallel. For the first question, essentially speaking, which He asks of Job is the question that any criminal accused by Job would be most entitled to ask. He asks Job who he is. And Job, being a man of candid intellect, takes a little time to consider, and comes to the conclusion that he does not know. This is the first great fact to notice about the speech of God, which is the culmination of the inquiry. It represents all human skeptics routed by a higher skepticism. It is this method, used sometimes by supreme and sometimes by mediocre minds, that has ever since been the logical weapon of the true mystic. Socrates, as I have said, used it when he showed that if you only allowed him enough sophistry he could destroy all sophists. Jesus Christ used it when he reminded the Sadducees, who could not imagine the nature of marriage in heaven, that if it came to that they had not really imagined the nature of marriage at all. In the break up of Christian theology in the eighteenth century, [Joseph] Butler used it, when he pointed out that rationalistic arguments could be used as much against vague religions as against doctrinal religion, as much against rationalist ethics as against Christian ethics. It is the root and reason of the fact that men who have religious faith have also philosophic doubt. These are the small streams of the delta; the book of Job is the first great cataract that creates the river. In dealing with the arrogant asserter of doubt, it is not the right method to tell him to stop doubting. It is rather the right method to tell him to go on doubting , to doubt a little more, to doubt every day newer and wilder things in the universe, until at last, by some strange enlightenment, he may begin to doubt himself. This, I say, is the first fact touching the speech; the fine inspiration by which God comes in at the end, not to answer riddles, but to propound them. The other great fact which, taken together with this one, makes the whole work religious instead of merely philosophical is that other great surprise which makes Job suddenly satisfied with the mere presentation of something impenetrable. Verbally speaking the enigmas of Jehovah seem darker and more desolate than the enigmas of Job; yet Job was comfortless before the speech of Jehovah and is comforted after it. He has been told nothing, but he feels the terrible and tingling atmosphere of something which is too good to be told. The refusal of God to explain His design is itself a burning hint of His design. The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man. Thirdly, of course, it is one of the splendid strokes that God rebukes alike the man who accused and the men who defended Him; that He knocks down pessimists and optimists with the same hammer. And it is in connection with the mechanical and supercilious comforters of Job that there occurs the still deeper and finer inversion of which I have spoken. The mechanical optimist endeavors to justify the universe avowedly upon the ground that it is a rational and consecutive pattern. He points out that the fine thing about the world is that it can all be explained. That is the one point, if I may put it so, on which God, in return, is explicit to the point of violence. God says, in effect, that if there is one fine thing about the world, as far as men are concerned, it is that it cannot be explained. He insists on the inexplicableness of everything. “Hath the rain a father?. . .Out of whose womb came the ice?” (38:28f). He goes farther, and insists on the positive and palpable unreason of things; “Hast thou sent the rain upon the desert where no man is, and upon the wilderness wherein there is no man?” (38:26). God will make man see things, if it is only against the black background of nonentity. God will make Job see a startling universe if He can only do it by making Job see an idiotic universe. To startle man, God becomes for an instant a blasphemer; one might almost say that God becomes for an instant an atheist. He unrolls before Job a long panorama of created things, the horse, the eagle, the raven, the wild ass, the peacock, the ostrich, the crocodile. He so describes each of them that it sounds like a monster walking in the sun. The whole is a sort of psalm or rhapsody of the sense of wonder. The maker of all things is astonished at the things he has Himself made. This we may call the third point. Job puts forward a note of interrogation; God answers with a note of exclamation. Instead of proving to Job that it is an explicable world, He insists that it is a much stranger world than Job ever thought it was. Lastly, the poet has achieved in this speech, with that unconscious artistic accuracy found in so many of the simpler epics, another and much more delicate thing. Without once relaxing the rigid impenetrability of Jehovah in His deliberate declaration, he has contrived to let fall here and there in the metaphors, in the parenthetical imagery, sudden and splendid suggestions that the secret of God is a bright and not a sad one – semi-accidental suggestions, like light seen for an instant through the crack of a closed door. It would be difficult to praise too highly, in a purely poetical sense, the instinctive exactitude and ease with which these more optimistic insinuations are let fall in other connections, as if the Almighty Himself were scarcely aware that He was letting them out. For instance, there is that famous passage where Jehovah, with devastating sarcasm, asks Job where he was when the foundations of the world were laid, and then (as if merely fixing a date) mentions the time when the sons of God shouted for joy (38:4-7). One cannot help feeling, even upon this meager information, that they must have had something to shout about. Or again, when God is speaking of snow and hail in the mere catalogue of the physical cosmos, he speaks of them as a treasury that He has laid up against the day of battle – a hint of some huge Armageddon in which evil shall be at last overthrown. Nothing could be better, artistically speaking, than this optimism breaking though agnosticism like fiery gold round the edges of a black cloud. Those who look superficially at the barbaric origin of the epic may think it fanciful to read so much artistic significance into its casual similes or accidental phrases. But no one who is well acquainted with great examples of semi-barbaric poetry, as in The Song of Roland or the old ballads, will fall into this mistake. No one who knows what primitive poetry is can fail to realize that while its conscious form is simple some of its finer effects are subtle. The Iliad contrives to express the idea that Hector and Sarpedon have a certain tone or tint of sad and chivalrous resignation, not bitter enough to be called pessimism and not jovial enough to be called optimism; Homer could never have said this in elaborate words. But somehow he contrives to say it in simple words. The Song of Roland contrives to express the idea that Christianity imposes upon its heroes a paradox; a paradox of great humility in the matter of their sins combined with great ferocity in the matter of their ideas. Of course The Song of Roland could not say this; but it conveys this. In the same way, the book of Job must be credited with many subtle effects which were in the author’s soul without being, perhaps, in the author’s mind. And of these by far the most important remains to be stated. I do not know, and I doubt whether even scholars know, if the book of Job had a great effect or had any effect upon the after development of Jewish thought. But if it did have any effect it may have saved them from an enormous collapse and decay. Here in this book the question is really asked whether God invariably punishes vice with terrestrial punishment and rewards virtue with terrestrial prosperity. If the Jews had answered that question wrongly they might have lost all their after influence in human history. They might have sunk even down to the level of modern well-educated society. For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue, their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. He will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job. If the Jews could be saved from it, the book of Job saved them. The book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement. But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job. Chesterton loved the Book of Job, and wrote about it frequently, including in his masterpiece, The Everlasting Man. http://www.chesterton.org/introduction-to-job/

Complete confusion as to true era of prophet Job

by Damien F. Mackey “All the Tannaim and Amoraim, with the exception of the one who placed Job in the time of Jacob, were of opinion that Job was an Israelite …”. R. Hananeel Thankfully I, now, due to my double biblical identification of the prophet Job, as (i) Habakkuk: “Where shall I place Habakkuk?” (1) (DOC) "Where shall I place Habakkuk?" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and, as (ii) Tobias, son of Tobit: Job’s Life and Times (1) (DOC) Job's Life and Times | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu am in a position to exclude whichever other suggested candidates could not have been Job - such as the Jobab of the Patriarchal era, or Jobabs of the Mosaïc or Judges era: Prophet Job did not belong to the Patriarchal or Judges era (2) (DOC) Prophet Job did not belong to the Patriarchal or Judges era | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The utter confusion over the true era of the prophet Job is clearly apparent in this piece from the Jewish Encyclopedia’s article on “Job”: JOB - JewishEncyclopedia.com Opinions as to Date.—In Rabbinical Literature: Owing to the importance of the Book of Job, the Talmudists occupied themselves frequently with its chief character. One of the amoraim expressed his opinion in the presence of Samuel b. Naḥmani that Job never existed and that the whole story was a fable (B. B. 15a). An opinion couched in similar words and pronounced by Simeon ben Laḳish was interpreted to mean that such a person as Job existed, but that the narratives in the drama are inventions (Gen. R. lvii.). Apart from these utterances all of the rabbis took it for granted that Job existed, but they differed widely as to the epoch in which he lived and as to his nationality, two points of discussion closely connected. Every one of the Talmudists inferred Job's epoch and nationality from an analogy between two Biblical words or sentences. According to Bar Ḳappara, Job lived in the time of Abraham; according to Abba b. Kahana, in the time of Jacob, he having married Dinah, Jacob's daughter (ib.; B. B. 15b; comp. additions in Targ. Yer. to Job ii. 9). R. Levi said that Job lived in the time of Jacob's sons; and he also said, in the name of Jose b. Ḥalafta, that Job was born when Jacob and his children entered Egypt and that he died when the Israelites left that country. Job consequently lived 210 years (comp. Rashi on Ex. xii. 40). When Satan came to accuse the Israelites of being idolaters, God set him against Job, whence Job's misfortunes (Gen. R. l.c.). This opinion is supported by the statement that Job with Jethro and Balaam was consulted by Pharaoh as to the means of reducing the number of the children of Israel and that Job was stricken with calamity because he had remained silent (Sanh. 106a; Soṭah 11a). It may be mentioned that this legend is narrated differently in the "Sefer ha-Yashar" (section "Shemot," p. 110a, ed. Leghorn, 1870) as follows: At first Job, who was one of Pharaoh's eunuchs and counselors, advised Pharaoh to have every male child murdered (Ex. i. 16). Afterward Pharaoh, having had a dream which prognosticated the birth of a helper, again consulted Job. The latter answered evasively: "Let the king do as he pleases" ("Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c. p. 111a). Levi b. Laḥma also held that Job lived in the time of Moses, by whom the Book of Job was written. Some of the rabbis even declare that the one servant of Pharaoh who feared the word of God (Ex. ix. 20) was Job (Ex. R. xii. 3). Raba, specifying the time more accurately, said Job lived in the time of the spies who were sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan (B. B. 15a). According to these rabbis, Job was a Gentile—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 (ib. 15b; Seder 'Olam R. xxi.). Other tannaim place Job variously in the reign of Saba, in that of the Chaldees, and in that of Ahasuerus. R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both declared that Job was one of those who returned from the Captivity and that his bet ha-midrash was at Tiberias (Yer. Soṭah v. 8; B. B. l.c.; Gen. R. l.c.). It is said in B. B. (ib.) that these tannaim necessarily considered Job an Israelite; but R. Hananeel (ad loc.) has in his text, "All the Tannaim and Amoraim, with the exception of the one who placed Job in the time of Jacob, were of opinion that Job was an Israelite" (comp. also Gen. R. l.c.). ….

Prophet Job did not belong to the Patriarchal or Judges eras

by Damien F. Mackey Some would have Job as one or other Jobab of Genesis “The evidence we will look at now will … indicate that Job was from the Mosaic period, and the missing temple and Torah will not help us so much because it was not that [Job] was too early but that he was not Jewish that is important”. Antony Michael Hylton While some commentators have argued for the prophet Job to have been the Jobab of Genesis 10:29: “And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan”, not too far removed from Abraham, others think that Job was, instead, the next biblically-mentioned Jobab, one of the kings of Edom (36:33): “When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah succeeded him as king”. Regarding Job as being the first-mentioned Jobab, Creationist Barry Setterfield has written: Jobab (barrysetterfield.org) Are Job and Jobab the Same Person? In Genesis 10: 26-29, Joktan's thirteen sons are listed. Joktan was Peleg's brother, and it was in Peleg's time the continents were divided. Joktan's thirteenth son was Jobab. Later on, in the Bible, we have the earliest completed book of the Bible, Job. Is Job Jobab? The evidence we have found in the Bible says that yes, he is. In the ancient Alexandrian Septuagint, from 300 years before Christ, there is a part of the book of Job that later translators left out. It states that Job lived a total of about 248 years. Although other Jobs and Jobabs are mentioned in the Bible, only someone who lived at approximately the time of Peleg or a little after would have this age expected. Before Peleg (and after Noah's Flood) the age expectancy was more like 400 or 450 years. After the time of Peleg we see a fairly rapid drop in life expectancy from over 400 years (Peleg's father and grandfather, in Genesis 11) to Peleg, 239 years, then Reu at 239 years, then 230 years for Serug, 148 years for Abraham's father, then Abraham's 175 years and finally to Moses' 120 years, which is the maximum life expectancy today. Read something Bildad said about these lifespans in Job 8:8-9: “For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers: (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow:) Shall not they teach thee, and tell thee, and utter words out of their heart?” In other words, many older people were still around who had very long lifespans, but Bildad knew their own lifespans were not going to be that long. The book of Job states that Job lived in the land of Uz. We find Uz mentioned in Genesis 10:23. He was the son of Aram, and thus a great great uncle to Jobab. There are other Uz's mentioned in the Bible, so let's look at more evidence. If Job lived during the couple of hundred years when the continents were 'unzipping' along the Atlantic rift and other places, there would have been mammoth tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain building and overturning, and other disasters. When we look at the book of Job, we find exactly that mentioned. Here are some examples: Job 9:5-6 (KJV) "God removes the mountains and overturns them in His anger; He shakes the earth out of its place and its core trembles;" Job 1:16, 19 (KJV) "Fire has fallen from heaven and burned up the sheep and servants and consumed them… and suddenly a great wind from the wilderness struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young men... During Eliphaz's first answer, he says something interesting: "By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed. The roaring of the lion, and the voice of the fierce lion, and the teeth of the young lions, are broken. the old lion perisheth for lack of prey, and the stout lion's whelps are scattered abroad." (Job 4:9-11 KJV) We can understand an old lion dying because he cannot catch prey, but when this blast of God also causes the young lions to be scattered away from the pride or the mother, we have to wonder what kind of thing was going on. The fact that the earth was undergoing a number of startling changes, even in the weather systems, is hinted at in Job 6 and is much more explicit later on. Here is the Job 6:15-18 My brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook, and as the stream of brooks they pass away; which are blackish by reason of the ice, wherein the snow is hid: What time they wax warm, they vanish: when it is hot, they are consumed out of their place. The paths of their way are turned aside; they go to nothing, and perish. Many modern translations insert the word 'thawing' before 'ice.' But that word is not there in any of the old manuscripts. What would cause streams to ice over in the Middle East and then not only thaw, but disappear in the heat of summer? There is evidence of an axis tilt of the earth at the time of the splitting of the continents, a tilt even further than what happened at the time of Noah's Flood. The tilt at the time of Peleg (in atomic dating about 65 million years ago, a little more than three thousand years before Christ in terms of orbital years), caused the ice age which crept down over Europe and into the Middle East. This appears to be what Peleg and his contemporaries witnessed. Later, when God answers Job in 38:29-30, God Himself seems to be referring to the advancing ice: Out of whose womb came the ice? And the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? The waters are hid as a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. In one of Job's earlier responses to his friends, in chapter 9, he refers to something God can do and evidently has done in their lifetimes (verses 5-7) Who removeth the mountains, and they know not; who overturneth them in his anger. Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Who commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars? Pillars of the earth? Each of our continents is formed around a large granite mass called a craton, or shield area. They extend to depths of ten miles or more. Thus, calling them 'pillars' is not a bad picture. And the fact that whatever is happening is so violent that the cratons themselves are trembling means some kind of massive series of earth movements is taking place. The sun not rising? When the earth wobbles, there are records of very long days in some parts of the world in the past and very long nights in others. Sealing up the stars? Volcanic ash in the air will do that. It is wise to remember that these are not scientific explanations, but descriptions of what had been observed. In 12:15, Job refers to what appears to be tsunami activity: Behold, he withholdeth the waters, and they dry up: also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth. If we look back to chapter 7, verse 12, suddenly that has new meaning in light of this: Am I a sea, or a whale, that thou settest a watch over me? Why a watch on the sea, or a sea monster (a more literal translation)? Because before the tsunami hits, the sea first draws far back, exposing the sea floor. Then the wave hits. If Job/Jobab were living at the time the continents were dividing, during those hundred or two hundred years, the tsunami activity would have been massive and repeated. Men would have to keep watch over the sea; and the evidence of the rapid withdrawal of the water could easily leave some very large creatures stranded, and thus easily seen. In 14:11, there is another reference which may well be to this kind of wave activity: As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up... When Job begins what we have as chapter three, look at what he says: Lo, mine eye hath seen all this, mine ear hath heard and understood it. Job and his friends were eyewitnesses not only to the working of the Lord in the lives of men, which is the primary topic of their discussion, but of the catastrophes they were witnessing in their time. In 14:18-19, we read And surely the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place. The waters wear the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man. In 18:15, Bildad makes reference to brimstone being scattered upon the habitation of a man. That is a direct reference to volcanism. In chapter 27 there is another interesting comparison Job makes. Look at verses 20-21: Terrors take hold on him [the rich man] as waters, a tempest stealesth him away in the night. The east wind carrieth him away, and he departeth: and as a storm hurleth him out of his place. In Job 28:5-6, then 29, we read As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire. The stones of it are the place of sapphires: and it hath dust of gold. 28:9: He puttest forth his hand upon the rock; he overturneth the mountains by the roots. He cuttest out rivers among the rocks; and his eye seeth every precious thing. He bindeth the floods from overflowing; and that which is hid bringeth he forth to the light. In other words, these men were witnesses of the fact that magma was producing precious stones and gold. There were places where they could witness large cracks and see the molten, seething, burning rock below. The evidence mounts. Mentions of cave men in Job 24 and 30 possibly define who they were and places them in this time as well. For all these reasons, and more, we have found ourselves agreeing that Job is indeed the Jobab of Genesis 10. …. Antony Michael Hylton, who has, for his part, attempted to identify: Job as the Edomite King Jobab (1) (DOC) Job as the Edomite King Jobab | Antony M I C H A E L Hylton - Academia.edu that is, the second-mentioned Jobab, is perfectly correct, at least (so I think), in chronologically locating this particular Jobab to the approximate time of Moses. On this, Hylton has written: Job From Moses Time? Fourthly after this we hear that Job gets a great expansion. He gets a double portion having prayed for his friends who had spoken so badly of him. We are not told where the expansion came from. However, if we turn to the story of Jobab we find something very interesting. Jobab the son of Zerach of Botzrah succeeds Bela son of Be’or. This puts us in the time of Moses. Bela son of Be’or is the first king of Edom mentioned in Genesis 36 and is associated with Bilaam son of Beor who was asked to curse Israel (Numbers 22). We notice also a similarity in worship practices. In Job God tells Eliphaz and friends to take seven bulls and seven rams and to offer him sacrifices through Job (Job 42:8). Whilst in Numbers Balaam says to Balak “Build me seven altars here and prepare seven bulls and seven rams for me” (Num 23:1). Thus we have Bela of Beor, and in his time they used to offer seven bulls and seven rams. He is succeeded by Jobab son of Zerach of Botzrah, Job, who has men come to him to offer seven bulls and seven Rams. This puts him in a similar position to Bilaam. Finally Jobab is succeeded by Husham from the land of the Temanites (Gen 36;33). Husham is from the same land as Eliphaz who was the leader of Job three friends. …. That “Bela son of Beor [who] became king of Edom” (Genesis 36:32) was indeed the venal Balaam (“Bilaam”) of the Book of Numbers, the: Baleful Balaam son of Beor (5) (DOC) Baleful Balaam son of Beor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu accords with my own conclusion. Our second-mentioned Jobab is separated as a king of Edom by his predecessor, Bela (Balaam) and his successor, Husham (Genesis 36:34), who was none other than the oppressive, for Israel, Cushan of the Judges period. On this, see my articles: Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom (5) (DOC) Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom. Part Two: Cushan reigned centuries before Hammurabi (5) (DOC) Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom. Part Two: Cushan reigned centuries before Hammurabi | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu All of this serves chronologically to locate the second Jobab rather precisely. Antony Michael Hylton will argue his case as follows: Some scholars date Job to the time of Abraham because of a lack of reference to the Torah and a focus on cattle as wealth. This is a reasonable proposition because indeed Job if Job was from Israel and from after the Temple was built or the Torah was given, we would expect them to get a mention. Secondly other scholars date identify Job with the Jobab of Genesis 10:29 and try to argue from his long life and the references to ice and snow and natural disturbance that he lived during the period of Peleg just after the flood when the earth was divided up. This [includes] Barry Setterfield and Bernard Northrup. They used the LXX to show evidence the names Job and Jobab are related and from the same root despite [their] different spellings. The biggest weakness of this argument is that Eliphaz the Temanite is in all likelihood a descendant of Edom or Esau. The evidence we will look at now will add evidence to that picture and indicate that Job was from the Mosaic period, and the missing temple and Torah will not help us so much because it was not that he was too early but that he was not Jewish that is important. Job was not a son of Jacob and not a Jew in all likelihood he was either an Edomite or an Arab from the region of the Edomites and so never did receive the gift of the Torah nor build a Temple for Yahuwah. Dating Job by the internal evidence and observation of what it fails to refer to is very important. There are however also other internal evidences in the text to help us date Job even more specifically. Job and Jobab Second King of Edom Abraham Abulafia a Jewish Prophet from the middle of the 13th century follows a tradition among Jewish sages that the Job of the book of Job is the Jobab of Genesis 36:33-34 and 1 Chronicles 1:23-24 (Hylton, Solomon's Satans, 2017). This identification is also made by Gibson in his Whence Came the Hyksos, Kings of Egypt (Gibson, 1962). It is also in the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Slavonic books of Job . Gen_36:33 And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. This is an interesting proposition and deserves some consideration. The first thing that can identify these two characters is of course the similarity of the two names. In English the only apparent difference is the doubling of the last consonant given Job and Jobab. The names are very similar . The LXX when translating the name only takes into account the difference in the number of Bs or bets. A second factor to take into account is their place of origin. Job is identified as from the land of Utz we are not told his father’s name. Job’s discussion takes place with his friend one of whom is the Eliphaz the Temanite. Teman is one of the cities of Edom and is therefore to the South and East of Judah (Hylton, Hadad: Hero or Satan, 2017) (Hylton, Habita Tzar Maon: The House of Eli Prophecy, 2017a). There is also a place called Utz in the region near Teman or Edom as mentioned in Lamentations: Lam 4:21 Rejoice 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. It is noteworthy that the daughter of Edom (a people who are offspring of Edom) is described as living in the land of Utz. We can add to this identification although it is from a period a lot later than Job’s time. Thirdly we see that the first born son of Edom is Eliphaz. Thus we have Job of Utz from the patriarchal period having a discussion with Eliphaz the Temanite, who may well be a descendant of Esau and his son Eliphaz (Gen 36:4, 36:10, Jer 49:20). Indeed the son of Eliphaz the first born of Edom/Esau is Teman. The Eliphaz in Job is a Temanite. Gen_36:11 And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. We find that our Eliphaz is the head of the three friends of Job. He is the first to speak and the one who got the first rebuke from Yahuwah [Yahweh]: Job_42:7 And it was so, that after Yahuwah had spoken these words unto Job, Yahuwah said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Job 42:8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job. Job_42:9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as Yahuwah commanded them: Yahuwah also accepted Job. We find then that Eliphaz the Temanite is rebuked and told to go to Job, now their representative before Yahuwah. They are to make their offerings through Job to Yahuwah . Job would pray for them and they would not get what they deserve. They would receive mercy, as Kris Vallotton would put it. …. Conclusion: I suggest Job and Jobab are identical and they lived in the time of Moses. Eliphaz because of the episode of Jobab came under the headship of Job/Jobab. Afterwards the next ruler of Edom and the region was Husham and Temanite like Eliphaz (Hylton, Solomon's Satans, 2017) (Hylton, Hadad: Hero or Satan, 2017). Job lived more than half a millennium after even the second Jobab of Genesis, let alone the first Jobab These two clues, Chaldeans and likeness to Book of Jeremiah, would seem to set the Job incident to much later than most commentators would tend to accept, to the Chaldean era, and, hence, contemporaneous with the prophet Jeremiah. One of the precious few, and clear, historical clues that the Book of Job will offer us pertains to the Chaldeans as an organised fighting force. That piece of information alone is, I think, devastating for claims that Job was the Jobab of Genesis 10:29, or the Jobab of Genesis 36:33. I wrote of this in a recent article on the prophet Habakkuk as Job, to which clue (Chaldeans) I added another one, the likeness of the Book of Job to the Book of Jeremiah: Habakkuk more interesting than he may first appear to be. Part One: Habakkuk was not just like Job, he was Job (2) (DOC) Habakkuk more interesting than he may first appear to be. Part One: Habakkuk was not just like Job, he was Job | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Habakkuk more interesting than he may first appear to be. Part Two: Belonging to the era of Chaldean ascendancy (2) (DOC) Habakkuk more interesting than he may first appear to be. Part Two: Belonging to the era of Chaldean ascendancy | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Chaldeans; Jeremiah; Habakkuk (Job’s Akkadian name?); all these witness to a c. C6th BC (conventional dating) era for Job as an aged and grievously afflicted person. The Book of Tobias, on the other hand, provides abundant biographical details (something quite scarce in the Book of Job) for the career of Job’s father, Tobit, and for the blessed youth of Job (= Tobias) himself. The Tobiad family, a Naphtalian family, commenced with father Tobit in the neo-Assyrian era, and continued on, with Tobias-Job, into the Chaldean (and apparently even the Medo-Persian, see Tobit 14:15) era. But the Tobiad ancestry appears to have included the famous prophetess Deborah herself. On this, see e.g. my article: Deborah and a second king Jabin (2) (DOC) Deborah and a second king Jabin | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Old Tobit intriguingly reminds his son, Tobias (= Job): ‘Above all, marry a woman of our tribe, because we are descendants of the prophets’ (Tobit 4:12). How are Naphtalians, prophets? Prophets customarily are Levites, whether priests or laity. However, as I entitled an article: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (2) (DOC) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu arguing for the non-traditional type of prophet, Amos, as the Simeonite prophet Zephaniah, God can raise up a prophet from whichever of the tribes of Israel He may so choose. In that same article, Judith, likewise a Simeonite, will be identified with the prophetess Huldah. No doubt Judith-Huldah became a “prophetess” through her marriage to the Levite, Shallum. (Cf. Isaiah 8:3) And the same sort of situation may have been the case with Deborah, thereby making her Naphtalian ancestors “descendants of the prophets”. Job was the Naphtalian, Tobias, who also had the Akkadian name of Habakkuk, living, as an aged man, around 600 BC (conventional dating). Hence, Job could have had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mosaïc era, nor earlier. Prophet Job lived East of the Jordan, not to the South “R.N. Coleman The Poem of Job “Josephus identifies the land of Uz with the territory of Damascus and Trachonitis. …. The habitual residence of Job was in some portion of ancient Bashan. …. ISBE: Uz “A kingdom of some importance somewhere in Southern Syria and not far from Judea, having a number of kings.” Trachonitis was NE of the Jordan (Smith’s Bible Dictionary). Auranitis was in SW Syria, S of Batanea and Trachonitis. Some think the Ausitis in the LXX book of Job was Auranitis or Hauran”. The less than straightforward geography of the Book of Job, and of the man himself, becomes far clearer in the context of the biographically-challenged Job when identified as the Naphtalian Israelite, Tobias, the son of Tobit. Although we must firstly negotiate the obstacle that is the confusion of names in the text of the Book of Tobit as it has been transmitted to us: A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit (2) (DOC) A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu My view of a location for Job’s land of Uz in the Hauran region is supported in the following argument against a southern, Edomite, location for Uz. However, I do not agree at all with the author’s belief that Job was “an ancient gentile/non-Jew Godfearer”: Job and the Land Of Uz (1) – Bible Topic Exposition (wordpress.com) Job and the Land Of Uz (1) The book of Job is said to contain more questions than any other book of the Bible. The struggle and patient endurance (Ja.5:11 & Jb.7:16 LXX) of the man Job argues the question of justice. After reading through the book, we see it is the pride of man which questions an act of God in judging that man. We are to trust God’s wisdom, regardless of our circumstances (cf. Ec.7:12-14, Jb.28:12-28, 42:1-2). However, the purpose of this topic isn’t to discuss the lesson or message of the book of Job. My intention is to locate the ancient land of Uz, and place the patriarch Job in the Bible timeline. Jb.1:1 “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. That man was blameless, upright, fearing God, and abstaining from evil.” Job was a righteous man (Ezk.14:20), an ancient gentile/non-Jew Godfearer. (see “Ten Commandments in Genesis & Job”.) The Lord questioned the adversary in Jb.1:8, “Have you considered My servant Job? There is none like him.” Job was God’s servant. The book of Job shows that Job practiced the Golden Rule. Jesus said in Mt.7:12, “However you want people to treat you, so treat them.” Job cared for others (ref Jb.31:16-23). {Sidelight: Jb.1-2 is one of the adversary’s three main appearances in the Bible canon. The other two are Ge.3 and Mt.4/Lk.4. He’s in Zec.3:1-2 (to a lesser extent), and in many New Testament references.} There isn’t consensus among Bible historians as to who wrote/compiled the book of Job. Rabbinic tradition ascribes the book of Job to Moses (though the writing style is said to be dissimilar). Chuck Swindoll: Job “The author of the book of Job is unknown. Several suggestions have been put forth as plausible authors: Job himself, who could have best recalled his own words; Elihu, the fourth friend who spoke toward the end of the story; various biblical writers and leaders; or many editors who compiled the material over the years. It was most likely an eyewitness who recorded the detailed and lengthy conversations found in the book. In Old Testament times, authors sometimes referred to themselves in the 3rd person, so Job’s authorship is a strong possibility….Though we cannot be certain, Job may have lived during the time of Jacob or shortly thereafter.” The time of the patriarchs. Mackey’s comment: Contrary to this last suggestion, refer back to the early part of this article. …. Job lived in the “land of Uz”, and was “the greatest of the men of the East” (Jb.1:1-3). Evidently Uz was located E of the ancient land of Canaan/Palestine. Uz is called Ausitis in Jb.1:1 LXX/Septuagint. There are places today which traditionally claim to be the city or region of Job. Many Bible readers think the land of Uz where Job lived was located SE of Canaan, in Edom or Arabia. Edom, Arabia and Midian were the land areas E of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Sinai Peninsula. Midian was E of the Gulf of Aqaba, in the NW of the Arabian desert. Edom lay N of Midian, and across the Sinai Peninsula E of Egypt. (Moab was N of Edom, Ammon was N/NE of Moab.) However, Edom and Midian weren’t part of Mesopotámia (located E of Canaan). Rather, both Edom and Midian lay south of the land of Canaan. Jb.1:3 Job was the greatest of the “men [Strongs h1121, or sons] of the East [h6924]”. What land areas were in the East, where “men of the East” lived? The expression “men of the East” occurs 10 other times in the Old Testament: Ge.29:1, Jdg.6:3, 33, 7:12, 8:10, 1Ki.4:30, Is.11:14, Je.49:28, Ezk.25:4, 10. Ge.29:1 Jacob went to the land of the “men of the East”, to Laban the Araméan/Syrian (Ge.28:5). Nu.23:7 Balak king of Moab brought Balaam “from Arám [Mesopotamia LXX], from the mountains of the East”. Is.9:12 “Arameans [h758] from the east, Philistines from the west.” Arameans or Syrians were “men of the East”. Jdg.6:3 men of the East. Cambridge Bible Jdg.6:3 “Bedouins from the desert E of Moab and Ammon.” Ezk.25:4 the Lord would allow men of the East to settle on Ammonite land. Ellicott Commentary Ezk.25:4 “The various nomadic tribes inhabiting the eastern deserts.” The desert lay E of Ammon. This desert of Syria/N Arabia was inhabited by “men of the East”. In the Old Testament (OT), “men of the East” refers to Arameans/Syrians; also to nomads or Bedouins of the north Arabian & Syrian desert (east of Moab and Ammon); and to Chaldéans. Pulpit Commentary Jb.1:3 “Men of the east’ seems to include the entire population between Palestine and the Euphrates”. Fairbairn’s Bible Dictionary “The East [Jb.1:3] denotes not only the countries which lay directly E of Palestine, but those which stretched also toward the N and E – Armenia, Assyria, Babylonia, Parthia, as well as the territories of Moab, Ammon, and Arabia Deserta.” “Men of the East” didn’t refer to peoples to the South, such as Edomites, Midianites, Amalekites. Barnes Notes Is.11:14 “Edom – Idúmea; the country settled by the descendants of Esau, that was south of Judea.” Ge.36:8 “Esau lived in the hill country of Seir; Esau is Edom.” Since Job was the greatest of the “men of the East”…the land of Uz/Ausitis was in the East. Uz wasn’t in Edom (inhabited by descendants of Esau and Seir the Horite); Uz wasn’t in Midian (where Moses dwelt when he fled Egypt). Descendants of Esau, and the Midianites, mostly lived to the south of Canaan. In the OT, the word Uz (h5780, Hebrew) appears 6 or 8 times, depending on the Bible version. Uz is a man’s name in Ge.10:23, 22:21, 36:28, 1Ch.1:17, 42. Uz is a land in Jb.1:1. Uz as a land also appears in the Masoretic text Je.25:20 and Lam.4:21; but Uz isn’t in the LXX Je.25:20/32:20 or Lam.4:21. We understand that Jeremiah wrote ca 1,000 years after the time of the patriarchs; peoples migrate and boundaries change over the centuries. In Ge.10:23 & 1Ch.1:17, the man Uz, the son of Aram, was a grandson of Shem (and a great-grandson of Noah). Ge.22:21 another man Uz was the firstborn son of Abraham’s brother Nahór. In Ge.36:28 & 1Ch.1:42, yet another Uz is a grandson of Seir the Horite. However, in the LXX Ge.36:28 & 1Ch.1:42, the name of Seir’s grandson is Os/Hos (not Uz). Whereas in the LXX Ge.10:23 & Ge.22:21, the name is Uz. So the name is questionable in Ge.36:28 & 1Ch.1:42…Uz, or Hos? Ge.22:20-23 “Milcah has born children to your [Abraham’s] brother Nahor, Uz [h5780] his firstborn and Buz [h938] his brother, and Kemuél the father of Aram…and Bethuél.” This Uz was Abraham’s nephew. Terah, Abram, and Nahor (later?) moved from Ur to Harán (Ge.11:31) in NW Mesopotamia. Terah died. Nahor then stayed in Haran. (God told Abram to go on to Canaan, Ge.12:1-5.) The city of Nahor (Ge.24:10) was in Padán-Arám in upper Mesopotamia (h763 Aram-naharáim). …. Gill Exposition Ge.22:21 “Uz his [Nahor’s] firstborn…gave name to the land of Uz where Job dwelt, and who seems to be a descendant of this man, Job 1:1.” Perhaps Job did descend from Abraham’s brother Nahor (in the lineage of Shem’s son Arphaxad)! Cambridge Bible Ge.22:21 “Uz as a locality in the Syrian region. It may denote a branch of an Aramean tribe. It appears as the birthplace of Job.” Uz, the firstborn son of Nahor, was the uncle of “Laban the Aramean [h761]” or Syrian (Ge.31:24). …. Job in the land of Uz had heard of YHVH and believed He was God (Jb.42:1, 5). Elihu the Buzite (h940), from the family of Ram, may have descended from Buz and Aram the nephew of Buz (Jb.32:2, Ge.22:20-24). More on Job’s four visitors is in Part 2 of this topic. So the land of Uz most likely was the territory where one (or both?) of those ancients had lived…Uz the son of Shem, Uz the son of Nahor. That land of Uz became known as Ausitis (Jb.1:1 LXX). Josephus op. cit. “Of the four sons of Aram [Ge.10:23], Uz founded Trachonítis and Damascus; this country lies between Palestine and Cele-syria.” (ref Lk.3:1 the Trachonitis province.) R.N. Coleman The Poem of Job “Josephus identifies the land of Uz with the territory of Damascus and Trachonitis. The habitual residence of Job was in some portion of ancient Bashan. Ephraem Syrus, who died AD 379, recorded that the patriarch Job resided in Bashan, having been the predecessor of Og [De.3:10]. He describes Job as a king, a priest, and a prophet of the Gentiles 140 years.” Bashan was east of the Jordan River. ISBE: Uz “A kingdom of some importance somewhere in Southern Syria and not far from Judea, having a number of kings.” Trachonitis was NE of the Jordan (Smith’s Bible Dictionary). Auranitis was in SW Syria, S of Batanea and Trachonitis. Some think the Ausitis in the LXX book of Job was Auranitis or Hauran. (Abraham’s brother Nahor, the father of an Uz, had dwelt in the Syria-Turkey Haran). Wikipedia: Bashan “After the [Babylonian] Exile, Bashan was divided into four districts: Gaulonitis, the most western; Auranitis, the Hauran (Ezk.47:16); Trachonitis; Batanaea.” Jsh.21:27 Golan (part of the modern day Golan Heights) of Bashan was part of the eastern half of Manasseh’s territory. e.g. De.4:43 “Golan in Bashan of the Manassites.” Wikipedia: Hauran “Auranitis (Hauran) is a volcanic plateau, a geographic area, and people located in SW Syria and extending into the NW corner of Jordan. It includes the Golan Heights to the west; also includes Jabal al-Druze in the east and is bounded there by more arid steppe and desert terrains. The Yármouk River drains much of Hauran to the west and is the largest tributary of the Jordan River.” And the Jordan River is mentioned in the book of Job! Jb.40:23 “The Jordan [River] rushes to his mouth.” Therefore, the land of Uz probably wasn’t all that far from the Jordan. Ancient Bashan was east of the Jordan. …. Cambridge Bible Jb.1:1 “The land of Uz probably lay E of Palestine and N of Edom. An interesting tradition places the home of Job in the Nukra, the fertile depression of Bashan at the southeast foot of Hermon. Near the town of Nawa, about 40 miles almost due south of Damascus, and about the latitude of the north end of the sea of Tiberias, there still exist a Makâm; that is, place, or tomb, and monastery of Job. Wetzstein assigns the building to the end of the 3rd century.” Pulpit Commentary Jb.1:1 “Arabian tradition regards the region of the Hauran, northeast of Palestine, as Job’s country.” Franz Delitzsch The Book of Job Commentary “Au’sos [Uz], in Josephus Ant. 1, 6, 4, is described as founder of Trachonitis and Damascus; that the Jakut Hamawi and Moslem tradition generally mention the East Haran fertile tract of country northwest of Têmâ and Bûzân, el-Bethenije, the district of Damascus in which Job dwelt. All these accounts agree that Uz is not to be sought in Idumea [Edom] proper. ….

“Where shall I place Habakkuk?”

by Damien F. Mackey Habakkuk was not just like Job, he was Job “We can see some superficial similarities in Job’s and Habakkuk’s respective theophanies, but the differences are clear also”. Hayyim Obadyah Venerable Fulton J. Sheen told this story about the prophet Habakkuk in a London Lecture of March 16, 1970: I know of a Biblical lecturer who had as his subject the 12 minor prophets. After one hour and 45 minutes, he had finished three. He had a dim sense that maybe the audience was getting tired and perhaps he should introduce the next one with some degree of histrionics. He said, "And now... and now... Where shall I place Habakkuk?" Someone got up in the back and said, "He can take my seat." Habakkuk no doubt deserves much better than that. And I think that the prophet may become far more interesting when enhanced with a famous alter ego, as I have done now in the case of various of the so-called “12 minor prophets”, e.g.: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (2) (DOC) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Long-lived prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah, son of Iddo (2) (DOC) Long-lived prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah, son of Iddo | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I believe that I have found a solid match, too, in Tobias son of Tobit, for the righteous Job, with whom Habakkuk’s metaphysical outlook can often be likened: Job’s Life and Times (2) (DOC) Job's Life and Times | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Mis-aligning potential alter egos, though, can lead one right up the garden path. For a time, I had tried to fix the prophet Zephaniah to Shallum (also a prophet), the husband of Huldah (2 Chronicles 34:22), before I became firmly settled upon (the reputedly Simeonite) Zephaniah (or Sophonias) as the definitely Simeonite Amos (= Micah). (See first article above) And see also my articles: Prophet Micah as Amos (2) (DOC) Prophet Micah as Amos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Micaiah and Micah (2) (DOC) Micaiah and Micah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Similarly, I had virtually convinced myself that the prophet Zechariah must be the enigmatic Ezekiel, before I became firmly settled upon Zechariah as the great prophet Jeremiah himself (see second article above). Now, in the case of Habakkuk - despite similarities with Job that had even made me wonder, on and off, if Habakkuk were Job - I had eventually come to what I thought was a neat conclusion, that Habakkuk was actually Elihu, the young man who would act as an intermediary between Job and the Lord. This Elihu, so I had come to think, had (as Habakkuk) already grappled with the very same problem of evil as would Job, but had emerged from the struggle even more enlightened on the issue than Job would be after his own theophany. Elihu, consequently, so I had imagined, knew that he was now Divinely empowered to counsel Job most wisely concerning an issue that had also deeply troubled himself. Upon further consideration, though, and with the benefit of the added information provided by the story of Habakkuk’s intervention to feed Daniel in the den of lions (Daniel 14:33-39), my firm (hopefully) conclusion has become, at last, that Habakkuk was Job. Articles showing similarities between Job and Habakkuk appear to be quite common - though these proceed as if (and just as I had thought) that Job and Habakkuk were separate individuals. Here follow just a few examples of such comparisons: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/nhtspj/similarities_between_job_and_habakkuk/ Similarities between Job and Habakkuk Old Testament time: Job and Habakkuk both deal with a person of God questioning God's justice. Job was "blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil". Habakkuk questioned why God allowed evil in Israel and became more puzzled when God told him that He would use the "ruthless" Babylonians (1:6) to "execute judgment" (1:12) on a people "more righteous than themselves" (1:13). In the end, we see both that 1) good people suffer (under God's direct control) 2) Job & Habakkuk both have a change of heart while not having their original questions answered. --- 42 Then Job replied to the Lord: 2 “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. 4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ 5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” --- 17 Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, 18 yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior. --- The NIV Study Bible notes on Habakkuk 3:17 states "Probably anticipates the awful results of the imminent Babylonian invasion and devastation. This verse demonstrates that bad things can and do happen to good people." The NIV Application commentary for Job makes the point that the Retribution Principle (i.e., "the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer") should not be applied to theodicy ("explaining evil in the world") but to theology ("the nature of God"). It states the point of Job is to trust in God's wisdom rather than focus on God's justice (as we can understand it). What's interesting to me is that both Job and Habakkuk did not have their original questions answered yet had a radical change of heart. My understanding is that they were given faith in God's wisdom. For people who are suffering, even though we can't help but pray for the suffering to end, this may be a helpful perspective. …. Again, Hayyim Obadyah, “Contextual Theophanies: Ezekiel and Habakkuk”: Contextual_Theophanies_Ezekiel_and_Habak.pdf Habakkuk’s Similarity to Job Like Job, Habakkuk challenges God about bad things happening to good people. As in Job, God’s theophany is a response to that challenge. A response – but not an answer to the question asked. We can see some superficial similarities in Job’s and Habakkuk’s respective theophanies, but the differences are clear also. The two books have a few interesting parallels in language. After the theophany Job says (42:5) $יִ תְּ עַ מְ שׁ ןֶ זֹא- עַ מֵ שְׁ ל” I had heard of You by hearsay”, while Habakkuk starts out by saying (3:2), $ ֲעְ מִ שׁ יִ תְּ עַ מָ שׁ” I have heard report of You.” In Job (38:82 וַ יָּסֶ ,( םָי םִיַ תָ לְ דִ בּ” who shut up the sea with doors?” seems to reflect an orderly process of creation, while Habakkuk says (3:153 Your with trampled You “דָּ רַ כְ תָּ בַ יָּם סוּסֶ י$ : ,( horses through the sea”, which may suggest a creation that is a triumph of order over chaos. The Different Reactions of Job and Habakkuk A fundamental difference between the two is the response of the two protagonists. Job is awed and humbled Job 40:4 הֵ ן קַ 6 תִ י מָ ה אֲ שִׁ יבֶ ךָּ יָדִ י שַׂ מְ תִּ י לְ מוֹ :פִ י Here, what should I who am of small account answer You? I put my hand over my mouth. The lesson he learns is contrition and his response is repentance: Job 42:3b, 6 לָ כֵ ן הִ גַּ דְ תִּ י וְ ל ֹא אָ בִ ין נִ פְ לָ אוֹת מִ מֶּ נִּי וְ ל ֹא אֵ דָ ע: ... עַ ל כֵּ ן אֶ מְ אַ ס וְ נִ חַ מְ תִּ י עַ ל עָ פָ ר וָ אֵ פֶ ר : So I spoke but did not understand, wonders beyond me I did not know …. Therefore I recant and regret, in the dust and ash. While God appears to Job and communicates with him, Habakkuk does not simply have a conversation with God. He experiences a vision of God not just making an appearance but acting within history. So, his reaction is very different from Job’s. In verse 16, Habbakuk describes this reaction to God’s appearance. Habakkuk 3:16 שָׁ מַ עְ תִּ י וַ תִּ רְ גַּ ז בִּ טְ נִי לְ קוֹל צָ לְ לוּ שְׂ פָ תַ י יָבוֹא רָ קָ ב בַּ עֲ צָ מַ י וְ תַ חְ תַּ י אֶ רְ גָּ ז אֲ שֶׁ ר אָ נוּחַ לְ יוֹם צָ רָ ה לַ עֲ לוֹת לְ עַ ם יְגוּדֶ נּוּ. I heard, and my guts heaved; at the sound my lips quivered; rot penetrated my bones; and I quaked in place; where I composed myself for the day of trouble, to go up against the people assaulting us. Habakkuk, like Job, is awed, but his response is visceral. Even though in Habakkuk’s case, the lesson to be learned is not as clearly spelled out as it is in Job, Habakkuk’s response goes far beyond Job’s because Habakkuk feels assured of God taking action – even though he may not understand that action. Therefore, rather than simply acknowledging the error of challenging God, Habakkuk rejoices! Habakkuk 3:18-19 וַ אֲ נִי בַּ ה ' אֶ עְ לוֹזָ ה אָ גִילָ ה בֵּ א7הֵ י יִשְׁ עִ י 'ה : אֲ דֹנָי חֵ ילִ י וַ יָּשֶׂ ם רַ גְ לַ י כָּ אַ יָּלוֹת וְ עַ ל בָּ מוֹתַ י יַדְ רִ כֵ נִי ... As for me, I exult in Adonai! I am glad in God my Victory, Adonai is my powerful Suzerain, places my feet like deer, and has me tread on heights … The Meaning of Habakkuk’s Theophany Job’s challenges collapse before the transcendence of God that is far beyond our comprehension, but Habakkuk embraces that transcendence. He is not intimidated by the overwhelming reality of God that is unchallengeable, but instead is comforted by the unmediated experience of God as an active, engaged player in the world. When Habakkuk learns that it is folly to expect that God should explain divine actions or to expect to understand why God does what God does, that is when he is able to reach the core of his prophecy and experience a profound joy of faith in God’s relevance. In the end, Habakkuk learns that the response he receives from God is far better than the explanation he sought. By engaging with the numinous experience of encountering God, the prophet has regained the solid foundation he needs. The troubles surrounding him, whether of injustice or oppression, however distressing, cannot overcome his confidence that God both is above all and does act in the world. This is the culmination not only of the psalm, but of the prophetic book. Habakkuk’s challenges earlier in the book have been satisfied not by logical explanation but through experience. In the context of the book, Habakkuk’s theophany can only come at the end. Like that of Job, it resolves all that has come before. …. And, finally, we read at: A Brief Look at the Problem of Evil in the Old Testament | (preachandpersuade.com) A Brief Look at the Problem of Evil in the Old Testament August 18, 2020 preachandpersuade Unsurprisingly, the problem of evil is as relevant in the Old Testament culture as it is today. In classic postmodern fashion, the existence of evil is given as one of the greatest arguments against God’s existence. Obviously, those who advocate such an argument forget that evil is a metaphysical reality, thus, validating the existence of the supernatural. In that light, the problem of evil should not be concerned with the existence of God, but rather the consistency of God’s character with evil. The word theodicy is used to describe the tension between the existence of evil and God’s character as righteous, just, and sovereign. To the finite mind, a contradiction seems unavoidable. The books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Habakkuk share the common thread of addressing the issue of theodicy, and thus, will be compared and contrasted to discover the Old Testament perspective. Job The book of Job is arguably the primary treatment of theodicy in the Bible. Brilliantly, Job addresses the common pitfalls of most theodicy arguments. To understand how the topic of theodicy is addressed in Job, understanding the historical context around the original reader of Job is imperative. Many of the near-eastern societies in the ancient world believed in a retribution principle. The basic idea of the principle is that the righteous receive blessing while the wicked receive suffering. Thus, if someone experienced great suffering and loss, it was because they were guilty of some great wrong. The common retribution ideology is expressed by the four friends of Job in the narrative. Their answer to the question of evil is simple; those who suffer receive justice for wicked behavior, while those who do not prove to be righteous. In their eyes, Job is guilty of unrighteous behavior (Jb 4:7-8). The beginning of the book reveals essential information. First, the reader is given the insight that Job is indeed righteous (Jb 1:1). Second, the reader is presented with another aspect of the retribution principle, namely, that blessing from righteousness will create improper motives for pursuing righteousness (Jb 1:9-11). Satan asserts that Job is righteous because he receives blessing and reward, not because he is truly good. To keep the reader from solving the problem of evil by reducing God’s control, God initiates the conversation with Satan and allows Satan to enact his plan (Jb 1:8,12; 2:3,6). Once the book closes, five things are clear. God is in control of all events, both good and evil (Jb 2:10; 42:11). Suffering and evil are not reserved for the wicked; the righteous shall also suffer. True righteousness is not motivated by blessing, but by love for God. God remains just while ordaining the suffering of the righteous. Finally, God’s use of evil is according to His infinite wisdom; thus, man cannot comprehend the harmony between God’s character and control over evil. In a condensed format, with clearer historical figures and events, the book of Habakkuk reveals the same answer to theodicy. Habakkuk Nearing the end of the reign of Josiah, the Babylonian empire began to rise as the preeminent power. Egypt, likely fearing Babylon’s conquest, sought to aid the failing Assyrian empire to uphold a buffer between Babylon and Egypt. For Egypt to reach Assyria, a trip through Judah was required. However, Josiah was unwilling to allow such an event; thus, he met Egypt in battle. Judah was defeated, and Josiah was killed. In the aftermath, Josiah’s wicked son Eliakim (2 Kgs 24:4), renamed Jehoiakim, was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho II. The historical events serve as the backdrop for Habakkuk’s cry out to God to bring justice to Judah’s wickedness under Jehoiakim (Hb 1:2-4). Hints of the retribution principle are seen in Habakkuk’s plea; he was confused at why the righteous fell and wicked prospered (Hb 2:4). God’s response was unexpected. God told Habakkuk that He was raising up the Chaldeans as a rod of justice towards Judah (Hb 1:6). Habakkuk was shocked, unable to harmonize God’s righteous character with His use of a wicked nation like Babylon. Much like Job, Habakkuk contends with God. Habakkuk argues using God’s character against Him (Hb 1:12-17). However, unlike Job, who argues for his innocence, Habakkuk admits the sin of Judah. God’s response seems unsatisfactory. God says He is in control. Amazingly, Habakkuk responds by trusting God. He sees no reason to limit God’s sovereignty or question His character. Job and Habakkuk serve as models for a proper response to the issues of theodicy – trusting God and living by faith (Hb 2:4). Ecclesiastes The book of Ecclesiastes is not centered on the question of theodicy as clearly as Job and Habakkuk. However, the book does provide insight into the failure of the retribution principle (Eccl 7:15), and thus finds comparison with Job. The form of the book is much like Psalms and Proverbs as a collection of literary types. The main idea of Ecclesiastes is the meaninglessness of temporal things, and therefore, the meaningfulness of knowing God. In Job, Satan sought to show how Job’s righteousness was a product of perpetual material blessings. Ecclesiastes shows the folly in Satan’s idea; all of the accomplishments of a king are disappointing (Eccl 1:12-4:16). Evil and suffering can come to anyone. Ultimately, death comes to the righteous and unrighteous (Eccl 8:9-9:10). Similar to Job and Habakkuk, Ecclesiastes upholds the sovereignty of God. God is said to set the seasons and times; therefore, all events are unchangeable (Eccl 3:1-15). Conclusion Scripture does not seek to harmonize God’s character with His control over evil. Often weak men, unable to live in the tension, compromise on one of two truths. First, God’s sovereignty is reduced to put evil outside of God’s control in efforts to protect His righteousness. Second, God’s control is upheld, but His justice is reduced, resulting in a god who is no longer perfectly good. Neither compromises are biblically validated. Job and Habakkuk serve as the model men who trust God by faith, relying on His infinite wisdom to harmonize the seeming contradiction. The New Testament continues with the same answer to theodicy; however, the reader is given a deeper insight into the secret wisdom of God. The answer to the problem of evil is that God, in His sovereign control, uses evil for good. The cross is the ultimate example. Acts 4:27-28 asserts that all the evil that came against Christ was ordained and controlled by God. However, the crucifixion was the greatest good as it resulted in the salvation of many. The crucifixion of Christ also destroys the retribution principle in that Christ, the spotless lamb, suffered in the place of sinners, and thus, sets an example of righteous suffering (1 Pt 2:21-25). …. Habakkuk, Job, grappled with the same major problem of evil. The Lord will spectacularly intervene to resolve the issue. Habakkuk was Job. Belonging to the era of Chaldean ascendancy These two clues, Chaldeans and likeness to Book of Jeremiah, would seem to set the Job incident to much later than most commentators would tend to accept, to the Chaldean era, and, hence, contemporaneous with the prophet Jeremiah. Without the benefit of the Book of Tobit – {which book, I believe, absolutely fixes Job and his father, respectively, Tobias and Tobit, to the late neo-Assyrian and to the Chaldean period} - perhaps the key clue to the historical era of Job is this text about the rampaging Chaldeans (Job 1:17): “While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, ‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!’” Job-Tobias had grown up with his family during the late neo-Assyrian era of kings Shalmaneser and Sennacherib (Tobit 1:9-21, GNT). Esarhaddon, who then succeeded Sennacherib after the latter’s assassination, though said to have been a “son” of Sennacherib’s, was not actually a direct son of the Assyrian king, but was of Chaldean stock. Esarhaddon, who inaugurated the Chaldean dynasty, was none other than king Nebuchednezzar himself: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (7) (DOC) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Life would now significantly improve for the beleaguered Tobit and his family under Esarhaddon (Tobit 1:21-22): About six weeks later, two of Sennacherib's sons assassinated him and then escaped to the mountains of Ararat. Another son, Esarhaddon, became emperor and put Ahikar, my brother Anael's son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire. This was actually the second time Ahikar was appointed to this position, for when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal. Since Ahikar was my nephew, he put in a good word for me with the emperor, and I was allowed to return to Nineveh. The trials of Job, though, would apparently commence somewhere during this Chaldean era. And this is the approximate historical point at which we also encounter Habakkuk. For the Lord tells the prophet (1:6-11): I am raising up the Chaldeans [הַכַּשְׂדִּ֔ים], that ruthless and impetuous people, who sweep across the whole earth to seize dwellings not their own. They are a feared and dreaded people; they are a law to themselves and promote their own honor. Their horses are swifter than leopards, fiercer than wolves at dusk. Their cavalry gallops headlong; their horsemen come from afar. They fly like an eagle swooping to devour; they all come intent on violence. Their hordes[b] advance like a desert wind and gather prisoners like sand. They mock kings and scoff at rulers. They laugh at all fortified cities; by building earthen ramps they capture them. Then they sweep past like the wind and go on— guilty people, whose own strength is their god. Perhaps a second chronological indicator from the obscure Book of Job is the book’s likeness to, more than any other, the Book of Jeremiah. Many have commented on this. Here I just take a piece from Bryna Jocheved Levy’s “Jeremiah Interpreted: A Rabbinic Analysis of the Prophet”: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Rabbinic-analysis-of-the-prophet-Interpreted-Levy/e54a412f035e1b69978bfc9d792c8f4834a44347 …. Womb to Tomb The Rabbis began the Pesikta passage with a comparison between Job and Jeremiah. Both bewailed their birth[1] as a result of the unbearable pain life forced them to endure. But, whereas Job is generally viewed as the epitome of suffering, the portrait of Jeremiah’s pathos presented in this midrash is perhaps even more painful. Job’s suffering is personal, and despite his protestations, he endures and is granted a second life. Jeremiah, in contrast, is unconsoled, and bewails the suffering which he is forced to unwillingly inflict upon those closest to him. The textual springboard for the Pesikta is Jer 20:14-18, wherein Jeremiah fulminates about his ineluctable fate, using words unmatched in their harshness: Accursed be the day that I was born! Let not the day be blessed when my mother bore me! Accursed be the man who brought my father the news and said, “A boy is born to you,” and gave him such joy! Let that man become like the cities which the Lord overthrew without relenting! Let him hear shrieks in the morning and battle shouts at noontide! Because he did not kill me before birth, so that my mother might be my grave, and her womb big [with me] for all time. Why did I ever issue from the womb to see misery and woe, to spend all my days in shame[2]? This image conflates the death wish with the healing and comfort offered by the mother’s womb[3]. Such imagery is described by Freud as follows: To some people the idea of being buried alive by mistake is the most uncanny thing of all. And yet psycho-analysis has taught us that this terrifying phantasy is only a transformation of another phantasy which had originally nothing terrifying about it at all, but was qualified by a certain lasciviousness — the phantasy, I mean, of intra-uterine existence[4]. The womb/tomb metaphor accentuates the analogy with Job, with which the midrash began. Job, too, speaks of returning to the womb when he is clearly talking about death: “He said, ‘Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord has given, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’.” (Job 1:21)[5]. The irony in Jeremiah’s use of this metaphor, is, of course, that God has informed him that he has already been singled out for his mission in utero. Even staying in the womb will not save him from his excruciating destiny as the prophet of doom[6]. …. These two clues, Chaldeans and likeness to Book of Jeremiah, would seem to set the Job incident to much later than most commentators would tend to accept, to the Chaldean era, and, hence, contemporaneous with the prophet Jeremiah. Many commentators wrongly suggest that the prophet Job had belonged to Patriarchal times. And, with the colossal assistance of the Book of Tobit, we can know that Tobit and his son, Tobias (= Job), had lived on into the Chaldean period. This would make Job, a contemporary of Jeremiah (likewise a contemporary of Habakkuk). A statement made by Habakkuk pertaining to geography had reminded me of a similar one made by the young Tobias (my Job). At that particular time I had been wondering if Habakkuk could have been Job. Tobias (= Job), when asked by his father Tobit to travel to “Media” (corrected by Heb. Londinii to “Midian”) to collect money from a relative, dutifully replies (Tobit 5:1-2): ‘I'll do everything you told me. But how can I get the money back from Gabael? We have never even met each other. How can I prove to him who I am, so that he will trust me and give me the money? Besides that, I don't know how to get to Media’. Likewise Habakkuk, when instructed by the Lord to take a bowl of stew and bread to Daniel in the den of lions in Babylon (Daniel 14:34-35): “… the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, ‘Take the food that you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions’ den’, replied: ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den’.” In both instances, an angel of the Lord will intervene to guide the apparently travel-shy holy man to the intended destination, and then back home again. The angel will be Raphael in the case of Tobias (= Job). So presumably the angel who will dramatically assist Habakkuk (Daniel 14:36-39): Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the wind he set him down in Babylon, right over the den. Then Habakkuk shouted, ‘Daniel, Daniel! Take the food that God has sent you’. Daniel said, ‘You have remembered me, O God, and have not forsaken those who love you’. So Daniel got up and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place [,] will be Raphael again. Presumably this Raphael was Job’s very “Advocate” in heaven (Job 16:19), a possible reason for why Job had become a bit too familiar and forward in his dealings with the Lord. Might it not seem strange, though, that Tobias (= Job), who had spent his entire youth in Nineveh, had, as Habakkuk, “never seen Babylon”? Well, Babylon was apparently over 300 kilometres from Nineveh. The geography of Tobias appears to have been of a westerly, rather than southerly, movement, namely, Nineveh, Haran, Bashan: A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit (4) (DOC) A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu His years spent in Assyrian Nineveh would also account for another aspect of Habakkuk, the prophet’s very Akkadian name: “Habakkuk appears to derive from Akkadian ḫabbaququ, the name of a garden plant” (J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary, 1991, p. 86). Apart from contemporaneity and metaphysical convergences of thought, etc., Job, Habakkuk, can further be linked. For example, there are common language idiosyncrasies. Job (3:23) - Habakkuk (3:3) uses a less usual term for the Lord, Eloah. And we recall from earlier in this article: The two books have a few interesting parallels in language. After the theophany Job says (42:5) $יִ תְּ עַ מְ שׁ ןֶ זֹא- עַ מֵ שְׁ ל” I had heard of You by hearsay”, while Habakkuk starts out by saying (3:2), $ ֲעְ מִ שׁ יִ תְּ עַ מָ שׁ” I have heard report of You.” In Job (38:82 וַ יָּסֶ ,( םָי םִיַ תָ לְ דִ בּ” who shut up the sea with doors?” seems to reflect an orderly process of creation, while Habakkuk says (3:153 Your with trampled You “דָּ רַ כְ תָּ בַ יָּם סוּסֶ י$ : ,( horses through the sea”, which may suggest a creation that is a triumph of order over chaos. …. Nor does that exhaust the list of linguistic connections between the books of Job and Habakkuk.