Where is uz

Hmm… Land of Uz, huh? It is mentioned in the Bible in these three verses: Job ; Jeremiah ; Lamentations , and the verses offered some clues about the land, but no specific information as to where it actually was.

The land may have originally been named after Uz, who was the son of Aram, and grandson of Shem. Uz was subject to attacks from Sabeans and Chaldeans. It had to have fertile pastures, since Job had many thousands of animals. It had at least one major city, since Job sat at the city gate. They do this because Genesis states that Uz was the son of Aram. It could have been in Aram… or it could very well have been in Edom.

The following are the determining data occurring in the Book of Job. The country was subject to raids by Chaldeans and Sabeans , 17 ; Job's three friends were a Temanite, a Naamathite and a Shuhite ; Elihu was a Buzite ; and Job himself is called one of the children of the East Qedhem. Teman Genesis is often synonymous with Edom.

The meaning of the designation amathite is unknown, but Shuah was a son of Keturah the wife of Abraham Genesis , and so connected with Nahor. Shuah is identified with Suhu, mentioned by Tiglath-pileser I as lying one day's journey from Carchemish; and a "land of Uzza" is named by Shalmaneser II as being in the same neighborhood.

The Book of Genesis describes how she became a pillar of salt after she looked back at Sodom. The ammonites became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous Period, at roughly the same time as the dinosaurs disappeared.

However, we know a lot about them because they are commonly found as fossils, formed when the remains or traces of the animal became buried sediment that later solidified into rock. Ammonite shells are used today as index fossils, meaning they can help date other fossils that are found in the same layer of marine rock.

The Moabites were in conflict with the Israelites from the 13th century. They are noted several times in the Old Testament. King Saul of Israel in the 11th century fought against the Moabites 1 Samuel , who later granted asylum to the family of the young rebel and future king David 1 Samuel —4. In this way the book of Job is a perfect thought experiment to explore this question.

Job has done nothing to deserve the suffering that is inflicted on him. God acknowledges there was no reason. Sometimes trusting and praising God, sometimes accusing God of being cruel and untrustworthy.

Listen Here. Listen On:. How to Listen. Show Notes Series Episodes Transcript. Share Download Transcript. Wisdom Ep. Wisdom E2 — 48m. We are co-founders of The Bible Project, and we're putting together a short animation on the book of Job.

And this is our conversation leading up to that script. If you haven't listened to part one, it'd be helpful to do that. In part one, we talked about the main question that the book of Job is trying to answer. Tim: Question in the book of Job is, if God is just, does that mean that the universe ought always to be run according to the principle of strict, just compensation?

Jon: In this way, the book of Job is a perfect thought experiment for exploring this question. Job has done nothing to deserve the suffering that's being inflicted on him.

Tim: "He's maintained his integrity, even though you incited me against him to ruin him for now reason. Sometimes trusting and praising God, other times accusing God of being cruel, and untrustworthy, reckless, unfair, and corrupt. Tim: He's just on an emotional roller coaster. It's a beautiful portrayal of the emotional intensity of hardship and suffering.

Jon: We're going to dive deeper into the book of Job. We're going to talk about the strange heavenly scene that opens up the book, where God is in heaven making decisions with angels, and it's kind of confusing. We'll talk about how Job responds, and then the long intervention that his friends have with Job, and what we need to learn from all of this. Here's part two of our conversation. Here we go. Tim: Good up. I don't think it does because I'm actually pretty sure it's not a Hebrew name.

Job, in Hebrew you say 'Iyobh. Jon: 'Iyobh. Tim: 'Iyobh. It's traditional route derivation. In Jewish interpretation is from the Hebrew word "'Iyyov," which is enemy or attacker. Jon: Oh. Where on Earth is "Uz"? Jon: We don't know. Tim: But that does raise an interesting feature of the book of Job.

As it introduces him, it tells us he lives in the land of Uz, which is essentially a Hebrew way of saying Timbuktu. Jon: Really? Wasn't is a real place well? Timbuktu is a real place. Tim: Yeah, totally. Uz was a— Jon: Was just some far out of the way place. Tim: Far out of the way place. The whole point is in a land far, far away. That's the effect that the opening line have. In a land far, far away is a non-Israelite named 'Iyobh.

Jon: Was there any strategic reason that it wasn't non-Israelite? Tim: Yeah. I think it universalizes the conversation. It's also I think the author's way of showing that this work is contributed to international conversation. The author is speaking from an Israelite God of Israel covenant Yahweh point of view, but he's making from that point of view a contribution to the wider conversation about divine justice and how the world works, and so on.

So none of the three friends are Israelites either. So yeah, it's the only book in the Bible that's quite like this - long ago, in a land far, far away. So that's significant. It also raises some questions about the literary genre intended by the author — like, what did the author expect the reader to think about what type of book this is.

That's interesting. Job is mentioned one other time in the Old Testament by the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel tries to imagine the three most righteous people he can, and if they were living in Jerusalem, it still wouldn't survive. Most translations translate it as Daniel. But that character doesn't quite fit what Ezekiel is doing, because the whole point is ancient people from the past who were unquestionably righteous and good.

Noah fits the bill, obviously — righteousness. Generation Job fits the bill. Daniel is a contemporary of Ezekiel in Babylon, and he's a really good guy. He's known for his wisdom more than necessarily his righteousness. So, some people think — and to be honest, I have about 50 — that Ezekiel is alluding to a character we know of in ancient Canaanite literature named Dnl, who was the ancient Kang who was super wise and super righteous. So he would more fit the bill of Noah, Dnl and Job because all three of them are non-Israelites, all three of them are from the distant past, and all three of them were super righteous.

Jon: Yeah, Noah was a non-Israelite. Tim: Correct. But that's the only time in the Old Testament that Job is mentioned. So the question is, did this actually happen? Or is it something like an ancient historical righteous figure was picked by the author of Job and placed in a parable or wisdom parable type setting It's intentionally fictional, and the author intends you to know that this is like a thought experiment. Jon: It kind of feels like a thought experiment.

Tim: It does. It does very strongly. There are some people feel that it's really important to defend the idea that the author thinks it was a historical event. Some people think that being mentioned in the New Testament by James means that you should take that interpretation.

Jon: Because James seems to be treating him like a real dude. Tim: Well, but that's the thing. All James says is, "Take Job as an example of suffering with patience. Jon: Right. Tim: Notice James claims to have some independent historical knowledge about the person of Job. It's clear that he knows the book of Job just like you and I do. I think they're strong arguments to be made that the book is a look like a wisdom thought experiment.

And that fits with the books opening in a land far away long, long ago. I think we can be neutral on it, because whatever you think about that question, the message of the book is still the same. Jon: It must be a thought experiment because, how could he have never done anything wrong? Tim: But the book doesn't say that he never did anything wrong.

It says that he was a righteous man, blameless. It's just set up the narrative as— Where on Earth is "Uz"? Jon: How could be blameless? At one point he must have had a bad thought about someone or he must have like— Tim: Sure.

The point is, is he was blameless Jon: He cheated in cards once. Tim: Sure, sure. And he acknowledges that in the book. But the point is, is he didn't do anything wrong to merit this particular suffering. As a thought experiment, it makes perfect sense to just portray the most righteous man. Jon: The most upright man. People who do take the book as referring to historical figure, and that that's important, usually have a theological problem then with the claim of total innocent, and with God saying he…God says He— [crosstalk ] Tim: Yeah, exactly.

So the argument goes, "Well, of course, he was sinful in general sense, he just was exceptionally righteous. The book is just trying to say, "This guy doesn't deserve what he got. Jon: Which makes it feel much more home to say this is a thought experiment. It's a literary thought experiment. There's no such thing as a guy this rad.

I don't know. Maybe there's rad people. Tim: Some great out there. Jon: There are some great people.