The Book of Job discussion

[JewelSong]

You mean, he couldn't be keeping the Commandments because the Commandments hadn't been handed down yet...?

The quickest way to an answer that I just learned last night while reading is Proverbs 8:17 (KJV) "I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me." (The I in this case being God.)

Well, I still demur. Job feared God and acted as God's servant. But I don't know if the word "love" is used anywhere in the Book of Job.

So there you have it: Job was blameless=Job loved God=God loved Job.

Maybe it depends on how one defines the word "love." As I said above, I do not think this Book of the Bible is about love at all.

[Impenitent]

Fact 1. "Job was blameless -- a man of complete integrity"

I believe this was also said about Noah. Since the Bible is also clear that no man is "blameless" or free of sin this seems to me to be a way of saying that he was a very good man.

In Jewish tradition, there are alternative views on Noah, at least, who was considered "righteous in his generation".

The positive interpretation is that, even in that wicked generation (which was deserving of being wiped out in a flood) he was righteous, how much more so had he lived in a generation of righteous people.

The alternative view infers that by the standards of Abraham’s generation Noah would not have appeared as righteous. Or perhaps that the shortcomings of Noah generation adversely affected him; he would have been even greater had he lived in Abraham’s generation.

(I've always wondered why Abraham's generation is considered so great, but that's another issue)

In any case, my comment is in response to Jewel's quote above, comparing Noah to Job: righteous in his generation is not the same as "a man of complete integrity"

I also posit that "love", as in "God's love", is a different brand of "love".

The Greeks posit four different kinds of human love: Storgi (affection or fondness); philia (friendship); eros (romantic love, being in love); agapi (unconditional love - caring regardless of circumstances)

I don't believe that the God of Job demonstrates any of the above. It is more of a contract: abide by my rules and I will stick by you.

ETA: should I be including links to indicate my sources?

[SirDennis]

You mean, he couldn't be keeping the Commandments because the Commandments hadn't been handed down yet...?

The quickest way to an answer that I just learned last night while reading is Proverbs 8:17 (KJV) "I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me." (The I in this case being God.)

Well, I still demur. Job feared God and acted as God's servant. But I don't know if the word "love" is used anywhere in the Book of Job.

So there you have it: Job was blameless=Job loved God=God loved Job.

Maybe it depends on how one defines the word "love." As I said above, I do not think this Book of the Bible is about love at all.

Now that you mention it, yes. I'm still in the habit of thinking the order of the books in the OT imply a chronology of events. The way they are arranged in the Standard (Christian) Bible does imply perhaps a leading towards how certain concepts are to be understood(?)


But yes, as it is not clear where The Book of Job fits in the time frame of history (for instance, when exactly it was written, and by whom) I see your point: Job likely wasn't keeping the commandments because likely they were not handed down yet (to Moses). Sorry about that, just learning here myself.

Edit: Though if Job was written by Moses is there a reason to believe it is not also a parable about keeping the commandments?

And though I agree that Job is not solely about God's Love I believe it is an element of the story (which perhaps, or not, will be revealed as we look at the rest of the book yikes)

Having said that, if we take the Commandments out of the equation -- though if "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever" I'm not sure we really need to -- and focus the definition of blameless solely on Abraham, we still arrive at the same answer:

Abraham was blameless in that he loved God and was faithful to his commands (so much so he was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac because God told him to).

Since Abraham loved God more than anything, according to that verse from Proverbs, God must have loved Abraham.

It follows if Job was "blameless" (an absolute term) also, then he loved God, and God him.

Just to reiterate and agree with you again, I am not saying The Book of Job is strictly about the nature of God's love. Yet I think it is important to recognize Job's standing with God beyond the status of a play thing on which to brag.

eta XPosted with Impenitent (reading now!)

EETA:

Thank you Impenitent, especially for the definitions of love, but also for bringing in the consideration of degrees of righteousness based on social context. (What passes for integrity today?) There is a passage in the NT that deals with this idea brilliantly, but another time perhaps.

In the meantime, apart from the Statement of Intent (which is more of a basis of agreement) no "oath" is laid upon this fellowship... if you want to include links that would be great!

EEETA: moved in text edit to enhance thought flow

[JewelSong]

I don't believe that the God of Job demonstrates any of the above. It is more of a contract: abide by my rules and I will stick by you.

That is my reading of it, as well.

Though if Job was written by Moses is there a reason to believe it is not also a parable about keeping the commandments?

I doubt Job was written by Moses. In fact, there is much speculation amongst Biblical scholars as to whether or not ANY of the "Books of Moses" were actually written by Moses at all.

And though I agree that Job is not solely about God's Love I believe it is an element of the story (which perhaps, or not, will be revealed as we look at the rest of the book yikes)

It will make an interesting discussion, indeed.

Some interesting facts about the Book of Jo (from Wikipedia, although there are other source.

Origin and textual history

Most scholars date Job between the 6th and 4th century BCE. While "there is an intentional editorial unity with a cohesive purpose and message in the canonical form of the book," Job contains many separate elements, some of which may have had an independent existence prior to being incorporated into the present text. Scholars agree that the introductory and concluding sections of the book, the framing devices, were composed to set the central poem into a prose "folk-book", as the compilers of the Jewish Encyclopedia expressed it. The central poem is from another source. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Targum of Job 11Q10. Another example of text from the last chapter or epilogue of Job can be found in the book The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, showing examples of how fragments of The Book of Job found among the scrolls differ from the text as now known.

The "Job Motif" in earlier literature

In 1954, the Assyriologist and Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer presented a Sumerian text treating the "Job motif" of the righteous sufferer. The Sumerian text is known as "A man and his god", after the incipit lu2-ulu3 nam-mah dingir-ra-na.Ludlul bēl nēmeqi is a Babylonian text, also known as the "Babylonian Job", which concerns itself with the unjust suffering of an afflicted man, named Shubshi-meshre-Shakkan."The Protestation of Guiltlessness," from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, is a collection of assertions of innocence which were included in ancient Egyptian burial rites, and is often compared to Job, especially chapter 31.

While these and other ancient Near Eastern texts consider comparable issues, scholars have not found their direct antecedent. However, the similarity between the central concerns of Job and those of certain ancient Babylonian and Egyptian texts reveals a shared interest in the question of why the innocent suffer. These texts also share an interest in challenging traditional views of the nature of divine justice.

And I found this very interesting, because Ecclesiastes is another Biblical book I find fascinating:

Michael Coogan writes in regards to both Ecclesiastes and Job that “Both take positions opposed to the mainstream of the wisdom tradition in the Bible, as exemplified in the book of Proverbs…” Job, along with Ecclesiastes is part of the dissenting or speculative group of wisdom literature within the Old Testament. In the narrative there are conversations that occur between Job and family, Job and friends, and Job and God. Conventional wisdom may be applied to the questions and advice given by Job’s friends or family, yet it is Job’s responses that make this book part of the dissenting wisdom or “anti-wisdom wisdom."

[SirDennis]

(Urgh, I've been reading in Ecclesiastes recently for the first time and I keep waiting for there to be a punch line, or rather some kind of reversal (as seen in many verses in Psalms).)

I just wanted to go back for a second to one of the questions from the guide post:

"4. If you didn’t use the rest of v1 to define it already, how does the verse itself define blamelessness?"

Here is the verse: Job 1:1 (NLT) There once was a man named Job who lived in the land of Uz. He was blameless—a man of complete integrity. He feared God and stayed away from evil.

Perhaps we might unpack "fear of God" a bit instead? I think we all agree that it does not simply mean "To be afraid of God." (I note you touched on this a bit already in one of your earliest posts.)

ps Thank you for the wiki quotes. Those debates lay quite a bit outside of my interest presently, but they are fascinating to consider. While over there did you happen to come across the entry on "Land of Uz?"

ETA ah jeez sorry Impenitent I meant to ask, do you think that God assumed that Job had Agapi (unconditional - regardless of circumstance) love for him? If so what does this mean in light of the verse from Proverbs? (Perhaps we should save the question of Love until the end?)

[JewelSong]

(Perhaps we should save the question of Love until the end?)

Let's do that. Otherwise, we might get bogged down from the very beginning!

"Uz" most likely meant "East."

ETA: Re: Job 1:1 - In some of the translations (particularly the "easy to read" ones,) "fear" is replaced by "respected."

(Interesting factlet: The Israeli author and translator Yemima Avidar-Tchernovitz, the first to translate Frank Baum's "The Wizard of Oz" to Hebrew, used "Land of Uz" as the Hebrew translation of Baum's "Land of Oz".)


No punch line in Ecclesiastes, I'm afraid. He was an old sourpuss from beginning to end. )

[SirDennis]

"Uz" most likely meant "East."

(Interesting factlet: The Israeli author and translator Yemima Avidar-Tchernovitz, the first to translate Frank Baum's "The Wizard of Oz" to Hebrew, used "Land of Uz" as the Hebrew translation of Baum's "Land of Oz".)

That puts a delicious spin on the entire tale.

So, perhaps we'll let things stand until tomorrow... to give others a chance to respond if they would like. Then it will be on to Job 1 Pt 2. After that section I will be asking for some feedback about guide post format (ie are people okay following along in their own text or via the links provided, or should I reproduce the text in the posts themselves, et al.)

[SirDennis]

The situation is complicated somewhat by the indicated historical context in Job. His making sacrifice on his own, along with the description of Elihu as a Buzite, point to the Abrahamic period, before the Mosaic covenant. If he is operating under the covenant of Noah, Job's blamelessness would mean something slightly different, and his relationship with God would have a disintermediated nature.

Ax, I'm really very sorry about this... completely missed this post bottom of page 1.

After looking up the definition of "disintermediated" (I know some big words but that is a doozy heh) I see you are following the theme of the expediency of cutting out the middleman?

Anyway, yes it is complicated because we are not sure where exactly Job fits based on "publication date." I think in the wiki article Jewel quoted it says somewhere that in the Jewish Tradition Moses is thought to be the author but then one wonders was it before the commandments were given to him or after? Regardless, if it is a parable (rather than say a history) written for illustrative purpose, what principle is it illustrating? Also, why is it in the Bible? (latter question being rhetorical )

(I rather like Impenitent's appraisal: "It is more of a contract: abide by my rules and I will stick by you.")

The idea that Job was out there making burnt offerings before the Mosaic laws is intriguing. If he can be said to have been emulating Abraham, what was his first motivation? A tradition? A direct command? This sort of gets at the Blake reference you shared as well. (Sorry I can't even pretend to know any more about that stuff at this stage than you see here. Alas, what I do know takes the shape of questions... I had a cool Blake poster when I was a teen in the 80's. My friends thought I was weird.)

There are other mysterious people in the scriptures that are mentioned briefly and then no more, such as Enoch. All we really learn of him is he was the father of Methusela, then walked with God 300 years and was not, for God "took him." Speculation is because of his relationship with God, God gave him a pass out of having to die on earth. (Edit: actually it's not really speculation if you take Heb 11:5 as true.) I mention this at all because we have a lot more to work with in the text when trying to understand what happened with Job, without getting into all the other questions that would obviously figure into a definitive (absolute) answer.

[axordil]

I've always thought of Enoch as the Tom Bombadil of Genesis.

There is no evidence of a priesthood or temple in Job. It really feels like he's acting on his own behalf in regards to the sacrifices. This really does make it feel as if it's just him and God and the Accuser.

[JewelSong]

The idea that Job was out there making burnt offerings before the Mosaic laws is intriguing.

Burnt offerings were around way before Abraham started talking to God...and way before the events of the Bible happened. Human beings have been making offerings to God (or gods) since practically the dawn of time. So this would not have been unusual, not matter what "god" Job was worshiping.

[SirDennis]

Thank you to our participants so far.


Before we move on, there are some things from this section that linger yet. I mention them in passing, perhaps in recognition that while assigned to the back burner for now, we might remember to stir them from time to time:

Although Job was “blameless – a man of complete integrity” (KJV says “perfect and upright”) he went so far as to make offerings in case his adult children sinned. This might indicate to some that he was motivated out of fear of loss. This view is reflected somewhat in Ax’s Blake reference but also perhaps in the converse of what Impenitent shared: break this contract and I will leave you.

The most poignant idea that follows, again similar to what Impenitent added, is that the meaning of blameless (or perfect) might better be considered a comparative, rather than an absolute term, especially when applied to man. Hopefully before we arrive at the end of this study it will be made clear(er) what we are supposed to know about Job as a starting point.

The question, where is/was Uz is outstanding. If Uz means East as Jewel offered, the question “East of where?” comes immediately to mind. Is it to suggest Job was not an Israelite but rather a person of Middle Eastern origin more generally? If the latter, should Abrahamic and/or Mosaic customs even enter into consideration? (Note: I believe they should but it is interesting to contemplate God in relation to people who may have been outside of what are typically considered to be guiding principles from the Bible.)

As well these questions remain: was Job a real person? (He’s referred to elsewhere in the OT as if he was as real as any other character found throughout history); did God love Job?; and indeed the central question, why did any of this happen?

Some points we haven’t discussed (yet) but readers may have been thinking about are: What is the difference (if any) between how God views life on earth and how humans view it (ie the value of material possessions, the burden of pain, etc). (Note: James 4:14 offers a glimpse of God’s perspective: “What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” an appraisal echoed elsewhere such as in Ecclesiastes); Secondly is the idea from the story of Joseph (who may prefigure Job or not) “what the adversary meant for evil, God intended for (or turned to) good” (Gen 50:20). Is this teaching instructive or relative to the story of Job?

Again, thank you so far as we look forward to the next guide post.

[JewelSong]

NOTE: Job also appears in the Koran (again, from Wikipedia)

In the Qur'an, Job (Arabic: أيّوب, Ayyūb‎) is considered a prophet in Islam. Job's story in Islam is very similar to the Hebrew Bible story but, in Islam, the emphasis is paid to Job remaining steadfast to God and there is no mention of lengthy discussions with friends. However, later Muslim literature states that Job had brothers, who argued with the man about the cause of his affliction. Some Muslim commentators also spoke of Job as being the ancestor of the Romans. Muslim literature also comments on Job's time and place of prophecy, saying that he came after Joseph in the prophetic series and that he preached to his own people rather than being sent to a specified community. Tradition further recounts that Job will be the leader of the group of "those who patiently endured" in Heaven.

I wonder if you are familiar with the play "J.B." by Archibald MacLeish, which is a modern-day telling of the story of Job. I saw this live in NYC in (I think) the early 70s - it was very powerful.

[SirDennis]

Job 1 Pt 2

Things suddenly get complicated

Please read Job Ch 1:13-22

What Happened
Job 1:13-19

Notes:
- One day while Job’s children were feasting at the eldest brother’s house:
- All of Job’s farmhands in his fields were attacked and killed
- All of Job’s donkeys and oxen were stolen during the attack
- All of Job’s sheep and shepherds were killed by lightening (fire from heaven)
- All of Job’s camels were stolen and servants killed in a separate attack and
- All of Job’s children were killed when the house they were feasting in collapsed due to a strong wind.
- The only survivors that day were Job, 4 messengers, and Job’s wife

Questions:
1. What did losing all of one’s children, livestock and servants mean in those days?
2. Is it different losing a child today than it might have been 2k years ago?
3. How do we know Job’s wife survived?

Job’s Reaction
Job Ch 1:20-22

Notes:
- Job stood up, tore his clothes, shaved his head and fell to the ground to worship
- He said:
“I came naked from my mother’s womb,
and I will be naked when I leave.
The LORD gave me what I had,
and the LORD has taken it away.
Praise the name of the LORD!”
- In spite of it all, Job did not sin.

Questions:
4. Why did Job stand up, tear his clothes and shave his head?
5. What does the word worship mean?
6. Why do Job’s words sound familiar?
7. What do Job’s words imply?
8. Job did not sin? In what way might we have expected Job to sin?

General talking points:
Are there any verses from Part 2 you find particularly difficult, beautiful, scary, funny, whatever that you would like to talk about?

Next Up Job 2 From worse to potentially devastating

[SirDennis]

Okay, just a few comments to get started...

Here we have Job losing (almost) everything apart from his health (that happens soon).

His misfortune came in the form of: two attacks on his workers (servants) and property by brigands (I'm just calling them that based on what happened); and
two catastrophic natural events, lightning and wind -- the lightening burned up his sheep and shepherds, and the wind made Job's eldest son's house to collapse killing all Job's adult children who were feasting there.

From what we learned in Part 1, least ways it did not say so, this was not meant as punishment. In fact Part 1 made it pretty clear that Job was not in line for punishment for anything he had done with his own hands.

For those that know the end of the story (and I warrant most readers do already) Job ends up with more livestock, servants and a larger family than he had before calamity struck. Off the top, I continue to struggle with the idea that a new son or daughter makes up for a son or daughter who were lost before their time.

Sometimes I imagine, okay, if life on Earth really is vanity (worthless, as nothing, from dust to dust, and so on) then perhaps it is not so horrible when a life is lost, especially if it was a life of suffering, or even a life well lived. Having said that, I do not think it makes it any easier to accept, especially from the perspective of those left behind to mourn the passing of a loved one or to witness a seemingly senseless death. Reason tells me that if life on the other side is a better quality of existence, then the sooner the better.

Still, even saying "the sooner the better," as one who lives and breaths today and has aspirations of a sort, feels wrong. Not wrong as in bad, just as in we really were not made to look forward to death. Actually one looking forward to death is generally understood to be wretched or otherwise insane.

On the other hand, accepting that we all must die some time brings a kind of peace. Soldiers sometimes talk about the bullet with your name on it: you can't hide from that one, but the rest of them aren't meant for you so you might as well relax. How often does panic lead to more harm than good?

Anyway, I'm just rambling here... but if anyone else finds this part of the story a little (or a lot) hard to swallow, you are not alone.

[JewelSong]

, I continue to struggle with the idea that a new son or daughter makes up for a son or daughter who were lost before their time.

This is the part of the Job story that always has made me feel that the god in the story is nothing but a petty tyrant, given to whims and abuse of power.

Replacing the children lost cannot be compared with replacing the buildings and livestock.

(This is also why I believe the whole story is a fable - if he had adult children, his wife must have been up there in years. Did she then given birth to another 10 or so babies? I mean, "anything is possible with God" they say, but seriously? A woman in her 40s or 50s, having 10 more kids? God obviously didn't think much of her, either.)

[axordil]

JS--There's a tradition that the old guy got a new wife to produce new babies. :o

Blake flatly rejected the notion that God killed the children, as we only have the tidings from the messengers to prove it. In his version they just disappear for the duration, and Job and his wife are left to believe they are dead, which for the purposes of the meat of the story is functionally the same. Then again, Blake was arguably a Romantic, and the implied equivalence of the children and the livestock is not a cultural accident. Chattel is chattel.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is also why I believe the whole story is a fable

The Talmud specifically states that Job was a parable, and that he never existed.

[JewelSong]

Interesting, Voronwë, because Wikipedia has this: (bolding mine)

A clear majority of Rabbinical Torah scholars saw Job as having in fact existed as a powerful and historically factual figure. Some scholars of Orthodox Judaism maintain that Job was in fact one of three advisors that Pharaoh consulted, prior to taking action against the increasingly multiplying "Children of Israel" mentioned in the Book of Exodus during the time of Moses' birth. The episode is mentioned in the Talmud (Tractate Sotah): Balaam gives evil advice urging Pharaoh to kill the Hebrew male new-born babies; Jethro opposes Pharaoh and tells him not to harm the Hebrews at all, and Job keeps silent and does not reveal his mind even though he was personally opposed to Pharaoh's destructive plans. It is for his silence that God subsequently punishes him with his bitter afflictions. However, the book of Job itself contains no indication of this, and to the prophet Ezekiel, Yahweh refers to Job as a righteous man of the same calibre as Noah and Daniel.

There is a minority view among Rabbinical scholars... that says Job never existed (Midrash Genesis Rabbah LXVII). In this view, Job was a literary creation by a prophet who used this form of writing to convey a divine message. On the other hand, the Talmud (in Tractate Baba Batra 15a–16b) goes to great lengths trying to ascertain when Job actually lived, citing many opinions and interpretations by the leading sages.

So it seems there is some disagreement and it is not so clear, even in the Talmud.

[axordil]

Job keeps silent and does not reveal his mind even though he was personally opposed to Pharaoh's destructive plans. It is for his silence that God subsequently punishes him with his bitter afflictions

This strikes me as absolutely undercutting the whole book in a flailing attempt to avoid its central theodicy; but Job has never been easy to reconcile with other scripture.

[tinwë]

Regarding the death of Job's children, I always thought that the loss of the first children was tempered by the fact that they, unlike Job, were not "blameless". Chapter 1 verses 4-5 seems to paint them as a bunch of party animals, feasting for days on end, eating and drinking while Job, presumably, did all of the work. It has been mentioned here that what was done to Job was not punishment (Jewel's Wikipedia quote notwithstanding), but that doesn't mean that what happened to his children was not punishment.

I also find it interesting that in the NLT version that SirD links to the wording in verse 22 says "In all of this, Job did not sin by blaming God". Could this be what is meant by "blameless"? Not that job never did anything wrong, but simply that he did not blame god for bad things that happened. The New Testament at least is pretty clear that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", so one has to assume (if one is looking at this from a Christian viewpoint) that Job too was a sinner.