In my review of Tremper Longman III’s How to Read Exodus, I mentioned that Longman briefly discusses his view on the book of Job—namely that he views it as book of historical fiction with a theological purpose. In that review, I stated that I disagreed with Longman’s view. Today, blogger friend Jeff at Scripture Zealot posted a short post on why he believes Job was a real person, quoting from Ezekiel who mentions Job alongside Noah and Daniel.

I thought I would chime in and mention my reasons for agreeing with Jeff over Tremper. Before I give the two reasons for that, I’d like to say that I would have no problem taking Job as ahistorical, and the book of Job as a theological parable. If that was the author’s intent, then we must in fact take the book that way. In the end, I don’t think that was the author’s intent. Here are the two main reasons why:

First, the author of Job writes as if he intends for us to take the book as historical. For example, much of the book’s intro is written like the other historical narratives within the bible. Along with this, there is an inordinate amount of information given about Job which is usually not included in parables (i.e., name, family, where he lives, etc). In the parables of Jesus, only one character is named, and that is because the naming of the character itself is a theological point as Tim Keller has shown.

Second, other authors in the primary sources take Job’s historicity for granted. As Jeff mentioned in his post, Job is mentioned alongside Noah and Daniel as historical figures in Ezekiel 14.14. Job also appears in the New Testament, in the book of James as an example of someone who persevered in suffering in James 5.11. If Job did not live and suffer, then James’ use of him as an example is pointless—something Tremper Longman himself points out about the use of the Exodus in other parts of the Scripture.

One argument against my first point that Longman makes is that the last half of Job, particularly the speech cycles, are poetic and not written the way one expects historical narrative to be written. It’s true that the speech cycles in Job are poetic, but the existence of poetry does not necessitate that it doesn’t reflect historical circumstance. The narrative does not need to be a record of the exact words spoken between the parties to be a reflection of history. We see this in the Gospels, which do not pretend to be a written record of the very words of Jesus verbatim, but a summary of all of his teachings and ministry.

In the end, the evidence points toward a historical Job, while the view that Job is ahistorical must go out of its way to explain the book.

Note: These reasons are also why I believe Jonah is a historical figure as well.