Notsri

The Talmud offers a number of opinions, and this is just one of them; and it's held by an unnamed scholar. The Rabbi Levi bar Lachma suggested Job lived during the time of Moses, while the Rabbis Yohanan and Elazar both thought he lived during the time of the Babylonian Exile. In any case, the unnamed scholar's view is overturned in the Talmud by a Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani.

Anat

The point is lack of historicity of Job isn't a theological problem.

(OK, if you had asked Yeshayahu Leibowitz, he would have said that lack of historicity of anything in the Bible isn't a theological problem, because theological truth has nothing to do with historical or scientific truth. He used to say that in order to learn about the natural world he opens a science book, in order to learn about history he opens a history book. He reads TaNaKh to learn what God wants him to do.)

Diogenes the Cynic

Contradicting an assertion is not the same as "overturning" it. In order to overturn the assertion that Job is ahistorical, someone would have to PROVE that it was historical. This is manifestly not something that anyone has ever done. There may be conflicting rabbincal opinions about it but nothing has been "overturned."

Notsri

I don't know, Diogenes, I think the evidence indicates otherwise - at least with regard to the question of actual documentation (the reliability of those records may be another issue). Josephus twice, to my knowledge, mentions the public records in Judea (Against Apion 1.7; Life 1), even suggesting that the keeping of those tables, at least with regard to the priest's lineage, was their "practice not only in Judea, but wheresoever any body of men of our nation do live" (Against Apion 1.7). The Mishnah (Yevamoth 4:13) indicates the presence of genealogical scrolls in Jerusalem, as does at least one Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 98:8). Hillel (1st cent. BCE) and the Patriarch Rabbi Judah (2nd-3rd cent. CE) reportedly could each demonstrate their Davidic descent (Bereshit Rabbah 33:3; 98:8). It's also significant that both the Patriarch in Judea as well as the Exilarch in Babylonia, had to show their Davidic descent prior (of course) to their appointment to those positions. (The Patriarch had to descend from David through at least his mother, while the Exilarch had to do the same though through his father.) Also, from Christian sources, Eusebius refers to the persecution of Davidic descendants during the time of Domitian (H.E. 3.17-20). All of this, I think, provides ample evidence that the Jews were still keeping genealogical records during the time of Jesus, even up until at least the 3rd century (and I'm sure much later, too).

Notsri

Your complaint is anachronistic in this context. The rabbis were not concerned with proving a particular view according to todays scientific standards. A "certain scholar" expressed the opinion that Job never lived; R. Nachmani then proffered evidence from the book (and the book alone) to show otherwise. The Gemara then gives R. Nachmani the last word. Thus, the Gemara apparently rejects this unnamed scholar's view; his opinion has no authority, it's been invalidated; thus, it was "overturned," according to their standards.

Amaleq13

Even if we assume Davidic lineage could be established, the notion that the Romans would base a census on it is idiotic and not at all supported by the Egyptian census reference.

The idea of every Jew who could trace their lineage to David descending upon tiny Bethlehem to be counted is just too absurd. :rolling:

Diogenes the Cynic

Eusebius is hardly a credible source.

There were traditional family lines for the Priesthood. There were no documented geneologies going back to David. There is no proof that David even existed. Midrashes are fictive commentaries, not histories. It would not have been possible to "demonstrate" Davidic descendancy for anyone, Patriarchs or other (and you did not provide either a source for the latter claim, nor descibe a method of "demonstration.")

Can you name an extant geneology from the post exilic period which goes back to David?

Diogenes the Cynic

None of their opinions have any "authority," and arguments from authority are worthless anyway. Nachmani's argument is silly, by the way. you can't prove a book is historical by quoting from the book, that's completely circular

Anat

Nostri, the fact that Nahmani was quoted last doesn't mean his opinion is considered 'more true'. Historicity of Job isn't a matter of Halakha, as it does not influence how Jews should run their lives. Therefore there was no need to establish who was right. In matters of Halakha, if conflicting views are mentioned, it is also mentioned which opinion rules - "and halakha is according to <insert name>"

Notsri

Diogenes, it does not necessarily follow from the current paucity of historical evidence for David that the Jewish people never had documented Davidic genealogies.

To illustrate that there were apparently such genealogical scrolls in Israel at one time, perhaps it would be best just to quote a relevant passage:

- Bereshit Rabbah 98:8

Well again, reliability of the genealogy aside, yes, I can: it's found in Seder Olam Zutta.

- Strack & Stemberger's Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, p. 327

edited to add: Of course, we also have two extant, post exilic genealogies that extend back to David in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.