The Book of Job discussion

[vison]

, 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.)

Amen.

[SirDennis]

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.

Yes, appearances of subterfuge on my part notwithstanding, I think this is why I found Impenitent's observation about blameless (or perfect in KJV) being a relative term to be important. Though he was blameless, Job would still be considered to be "not without sin" by some Christian readers, simply by dint of being a resident of earth (parable or not). However, as you point out, and certainly when placed in the company of David for instance, he was presented to be about as good a man as can be expected.

In reading the other contributions before this one, an idea came back to my mind that I've heard expressed elsewhere: Because God is not a temporal being (as supported by scripture by such sayings as "our ways are not God's ways," "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" and "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past") he didn't fully appreciate what it was like to be a human suffering on earth as we often do. To which a Christian might point out, that is why he came in the flesh, born into poverty no less. Personally I think he does know, and appreciate our suffering, but came (in part) that he might prove it to those who wanted physical evidence.

That said, I think Ax's appraisal rings true to the extent that it does seem that (in general) throughout history, people, even in the not so distance past (and in some cases even now) view children differently than "we" do today. However, again, there is the story of Joseph (in Genesis), one of 10(?) sons who was lost and mourned indefinitely by his father. Then there's the story of Moses' birth, and so on. (And moving forward there is the parable of the prodigal son, and the idea of leaving 99 sheep to look for the one who is lost in the NT).

Edit: Now that you mention it Frelga, I see the problem with that sentence... words in indigo mark my attempt to make it read less like a condemnation or fact to all concerned.

[JewelSong]

born into poverty no less.

Just a minor point. Jesus was not "born into poverty." His father, Joseph, was a successful carpenter. The only reason he had to be born in a stable is (presumably) because Bethlehem was so crowded due the the census and Jospeh hadn't made reservations. There is nothing to suggest that his family was poor; in fact, his father was fairly well-known.

[Dave_LF]

Job has never been easy to reconcile with other scripture.

Speaking for myself, it was (and continues to be) an enormous relief not to have to attempt that sort of thing anymore. Job is interesting on a number of levels, but it's hard to let it speak with its own voice if you try to force-fit it into a framework that didn't even exist when it was written. It is likely the first book of the Bible to be put into writing, though I think an individual passage or two elsewhere (the Song of Deborah?) is believed to be even older. As such, it provides some intriguing glimpses of the belief system in its embryonic stages. Further, there is something about it's presentation and the way it advocates serene acceptance of things beyond your control that feels almost Eastern. The concept does crop up later in other places, but it's colored differently*. Usually the idea is that you should pray for what you want, but be prepared to accept "no" for an answer--Job goes even farther than that. Although Job gets privately miffed and certainly does look like he's trying to change God's mind with the sackcloth and ashes, etc., in the final exchange God in so many words tells him he shouldn't even do that.

Isaac Asimov has a number of interesting insights on Job in his overview of the Bible (seriously, is there any subject that man couldn't write on as an expert?), but I have unfortunately forgotten most of them over the 15 or so years that have passed since I read it.

*except, perhaps, in Ecclesiastes, which feels very similar. And which has a similar reputation as a problem child that doesn't play well with others.

[JewelSong]

Asimov wrote an overview of the Bible?

Cool. I'll have to check it out!

[Frelga]

I... There isnt even a place for me to start.

If you bring to the story the Christian assumptions that Job was a sinner by dint of being born (in direct contradiction to the Jewish belief that "the soul you gave me is pure") and that the Satan is... what, another name for devil? then we are no longer talking about the same story.

[JewelSong]

Since the story was written well before the birth of Christ, it would seem to make more sense to view it through a pre-Christian lens.

It is also why I like the term "The Adversary" used in some translations, rather than "Satan."

[SirDennis]

When we look at chapters in Lord of the Rings, often we are lead to look elsewhere in the text to understand the actions of characters in any chapter taken in isolation. Bringing in ideas from other contexts is keeping things interesting for me. However I'm really trying to stick to the text as it appears in the standard Christian Bible, which to me anyway is a perfectly legitimate pursuit even for non-believers.

As far as the difference in perspective on certain details, symbolism, starting points, assumptions etc, yes it is understood that between the Koran, the Talmund, secular studies and even Blake's writing, the same story is viewed in different ways. This is definitely not an attempt to harmonize the various traditions, nor suggest one is more valid than any other. Where I am arguing or making a point from my own system of belief (ie Christianity) I will (and believe I have been so far) be very careful to indicate where I am doing so by saying "personally" "to me" "according to the NT" and so on.

I do think it would be difficult to look a Job simply as a stand alone text that may or may not even belong in the standard Christian Bible. The fact is it is there. As well, it is more interesting for me personally to see where ideas from Job are repeated or reinforced throughout the entire text, than it is to quibble over the veracity of the text or the perspectives that colour the experience of the text. Plus I'm kind of interested in seeing if the Bible can indeed be used to define itself; and the extent to which it is an adequate commentary on itself.

Just to be clear though, I am not saying there are not many fascinating directions to go in when studying ancient texts. But for now, what we are interested in here (perhaps I'm the only one?) is what is written there and what it may mean in one of the contexts in which it is commonly presented.

Now more specifically to Frelga, I do like the idea you present, about the soul being pure. I do not know that Christians believe otherwise (perhaps some do). But as a fleshly incarnation, flesh being corruptible (and so on), yes it is generally taken that the entire package (body mind spirit soul) is corrupt by a part of it being corruptible. The question is which aspect of yourself you pay the most attention and care to.

Aside: Oh and thank you Jewel. You are correct that being born in a barn does not mean that his family was poor... he went onto say of himself he has no place to lay his head, but that came later, perhaps after a couple failed marriages or devastating career moves (just kidding). Suffice it to say, having a baby in a barn, in that moment, regardless of what they had in the bank or tied up in 401ks back home, must have seemed a bit like slumming to Mary and Joseph. (This is me joking around... just back from cooking at the mission and I'm a little tired.)

[SirDennis]

Having said all that Frelga, I'm pretty sure we can leave aside the notion that Job was a sinner (or not, even) since it appears to have little real bearing (if any) on what he went through (though I note too that some Christian denominations would differ with me on this point).

[JewelSong]

At any rate, SirDennis, you have an interesting discussion going on...and that's the main thing! We do tend to get off track sometimes, so as the de facto moderator, feel free to gently bring us back on topic after a while.

he went onto say of himself he has no place to lay his head, but that came later, perhaps after a couple failed marriages or devastating career moves

Since we hear nothing of Jesus from the story in the temple when he was 12 until he began his ministry (around age 30, they say) who knows?

Humor is good. Almost always, humor is good.

[SirDennis]

Thank you Jewel, and to all participants so far. Looking ahead there are quite a few chapters. It may be that I will lump some together and present highlights. However I really want to avoid the trap of only presenting what may seem noteworthy to me... if people are reading along using the links or otherwise, they would be free to draw our attention to parts they wanted to comment on.

The structure of the story itself, assuming the structure is as ancient as the original text is purported to be, is quite sophisticated when compared to some writing from the medieval period over 1k years later.

On the other hand, the structure is as bones that are easily seen in a withered corpse... that is, fairly obvious. You will probably notice what I mean right away as we move to the next part (similar to this part) and then get into the debate section. It would be nice if someone with a little more understanding of writer's craft (than I that is) would feel free to comment on the book's style.

Just wanted to point out as well, that upon further examination I changed the sentence that Frelga highlighted from a previous post. It was quite problematic (leaving syntax out of it even lol) and I'm glad she spoke up.

[SirDennis]

Ooo I do not like the looks of 2 posts in a row by me (sorry). But before I prepare the next guide post, I was wondering if the guide post format is helpful as is? Would people prefer a summary of the section under consideration with a couple questions, or leave questions out of it altogether?

Also we haven't really touched upon the evidence that Job mourned before he worshipped. My sense is tearing his clothes and shaving his head indicate that he was in mourning. Such acts are repeated throughout the Bible to indicate such, yet I'm not sure if shaving one's head came from Moses, or Abraham (anyone?) If this is just another example of the difficulty dating the Job story, it reinforces for me that its inclusion almost midway through the OT is intended for a progression of understanding for the reader rather than marking the development of teachings and practices through history. (Regardless these are just random thoughts not intended to be statements of fact on my part.)

There is a beautiful idea (some call it a promise) expressed in Psalms about praying while in mourning (or very sad about something): "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy." Psa 126:5 KJV Knowing how the Book of Job ends, I wonder if this saying is based on his story?

Job's worship indicates his acceptance of what had happened, least ways in so far as he did not blame God. Which is interesting because even while that may be what the Adversary intended, he was proved a liar, at least in this case. He said "[Job] will surely curse you."

Another interesting point to me is that in the Garden of Eden he said something similar to Eve "you will not surely die." Well according to the story, Eve did die eventually. There was no indication before the fall that men and women were intended to die someday as part of existence. Ax will see right away that this looks like evidence of absence or perhaps argument from silence. However the means to live forever was there in the garden, the Tree of Life, and no one said anything about them not being allowed to eat of that tree (until after they ate from that other tree). In fact what is written is: “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The point is, in both cases the Adversary or Accuser said "if x surely y" which indicates either he is a wishful thinker or he deliberately lies.

ETA (honestly where is my head sometimes) I thought I might point out too that contrary to the text so far, there is a tendency for us (in this thread for instance) to say God did this to Job. According to the text it was the Adversary.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But unlike the great and powerful Satan of Milton and Dante, the Adversary of Job couldn't do anything without Yahweh's explicit permission.

[axordil]

There are structural issues with the story. The evidence we have suggests the core of the story is the oldest part: a virtuous man, beset by suffering, with friends (or perhaps brothers) telling him he must have somehow brought it upon himself. Both the framing story and Elihu's interruption seem to have been later additions, if one looks at the linguistic markers in the original Hebrew, especially the fact that the frame is in prose and the middle chunk is in verse. Old verse.

(That's all from my graduate studies, courtesy of my Bible as Lit professor, whom I trust on such matters implicitly, given the years he spent in rabbinical training before he decided to teach. )

The framing story struck me then as it strikes me now: as an attempt to put a difficult, even unpalatable theodicy into terms that people could relate to. It's like the gloss to a particularly opaque poem. But it raises as many questions as it addresses.

But for purposes of the discussion of Job-as-we-know-it, that's just background, not insinuation that one part of the book is less important than another. It's pretty clear to me that the theodicy, the framing, and the Elihu episodes are all deep ruminations on the central poetic story.

There was no indication before the fall that men and women were intended to die someday as part of existence. Ax will see right away that this looks like evidence of absence or perhaps argument from silence. However the means to live forever was there in the garden, the Tree of Life, and no one said anything about them not being allowed to eat of that tree (until after they ate from that other tree). In fact what is written is: “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

One crux at a time! The matter of whether Adam and Eve brought death...and procreation...upon themselves is a thread unto itself.

[JewelSong]

Heh. It struck me that the entire message of the Book of Job could simply be "Sh*t happens. Deal with it."

[SirDennis]

Good point Voronwë. It matters then: how he views the temporal as compared to life outside of time; if or how he places value (if any) on human endeavour inside a framework defined by free will; that we remain cognizant (in relation to Job but also more generally) of where certain ideas he grants permission to come from and; that we try to discern what might be his purpose for the things he allows to happen (if there is a lesson there or not).

On the last point in particular, it is true (in the text) the Adversary points out that God had built a hedge (of protection) around Job. Protection from what, or whom? If it is just the forces of nature, why would the Accuser care if Job is protected from it? Why would it need to be removed before he could act?

Just a note, I'm a bit busier today than usual (which is a good thing). Look for the post beginning Job 2 much later tonight.

Eta: Thanks for sharing that Ax. You are right about it raising as many questions as it answers...

[axordil]

If it is just the forces of nature, why would the Accuser care if Job is protected from it? Why would it need to be removed before he could act?

One is reminded of the Mark of Cain. There's little doubt the OT God in particular is depicted as providing special protection to certain individuals.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

born into poverty no less.

Just a minor point. Jesus was not "born into poverty." His father, Joseph, was a successful carpenter. The only reason he had to be born in a stable is (presumably) because Bethlehem was so crowded due the the census and Jospeh hadn't made reservations. There is nothing to suggest that his family was poor; in fact, his father was fairly well-known.

Apologies for this slightly off topic interjection, but the evidence for Joseph being a "carpenter" is predicated on the Greek ho tekton which itself is a translation of the Semitic naggar meaning "craftsman" or "teacher". Neither of these implies wealth. And neither do they imply he was specifically a "carpenter".
As for the census, it simply didn't happen. The whole Bethlehem tale is an attempt to shoehorn Messianic phrophecy into the Jesus myth. How could the Nazarene fulfil the requirement that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem? Create a justification. The census was just such a justification, having no historical reference. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the oldest Gospel, Mark, has no nativity. Oh, and nowhere does it say that Jesus was born in a strable. Luke merely says he was swaddled in a manger, and this has been taken to mean that, as a manger was an animal trough, he must have been in a stable. However, as mangers were used as cribs, again, there is no justification for this conclusive jump, especially as in the ancient world, animals were housed overnight in human living quarters...
Furthermore, there are irreconcilable conflicts between prophecy and written accounts. The Messiah was prophesised to be of the line of David, but Mary was of the line of Judah, and the parthenogenic birth demands the Joseph's line to be immaterial; it is no consequence what his line is, even if he is of the line of David himself!
More on topic, there seems to be some difficulty in reconciling the forgiving God of Jesus with the wrathful, spiteful God of Job etc. An elegant solution to this is that espoused by Gnostic sects, and especially one of (in)famous Valentius's followers, Ptolemy. The apparent illogicality of the perfect, one true God inspiring all the imperfections of the Old Testament (the instruction of the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites being a prime example) called into question whether the Old Testament God was actually the creator. But neither could He be the devil, as there was instruction that was "good". The conclusion must be, according to Ptolemy, that this imperfect world was created by an intermediary, neither purely good (God), nor purely bad (the Devil). This intermediary, the Jewish Yahweh, was the Demiurge; not perfectly good, but neither perfectly evil. He is a fallible creator, requiring a God-sent messiah (Jesus) to rescue humanity from his mistakes.
I think that the book of Job actually reads more logically if the God that "tries" him is the imperfect Demiurge.
At least, that is my atheistic take. Sorry if it has been off topic.

[SirDennis]

Not off topic so much as being completely unnecessary. It is understood that not everyone sees the scriptures as factual or very useful even. However our purpose here is not to debunk the scriptures. Rather it is to leave aside what are taken as rational arguments for or against the reliability of the scriptures long enough to examine what is written there. Think of it as reading any other book to discern its content, if not avail yourself of anything instructive it may contain.

Besides, offering what is taken as fact (today... tomorrow who knows?) about the history of the Bible, while interesting perhaps, is outside the scope of this particular discussion. Personally, that is to me, such arguments sound more like an attempt to rationalize disbelief than an attempt to understand whatever truth the scriptures may contain. As you see, dismissing something as merely a justification of something else tells us more about the speaker than the subject we are attempting to examine. That game has been (and will continue to be) played until everyone loses interest altogether. But hopefully not inside of this particular thread, more than is necessary.

I do appreciate your point about Joseph and Mary. I think the consensus is we really aren't told much about them inside the Bible itself. It was an important point Jewel made for me personally because it was yet another example of how I sometimes give greater emphasis to aspects of a story that are important to me (are in line with my world view and own understanding) than perhaps is warranted. In that particular case I stated something as fact when evidence (from the text) was sketchy if not altogether absent. Trying not to do that, so both of you have my thanks.

Edit: also, just to say, what you posted about Ptolemy, as well as your conclusion, is very interesting. I hope you stick around.

To the thread, sorry for the delay... I ended up being busier than I thought, especially after I was reminded of a promise I had made to another forum over a month ago! Hopefully I'll have Job 2 up soon. It's pretty straightforward, a strategy is refined, and a turning point appears.

[SirDennis]

So in the interest of moving things along, and because Job 2 is short, I will just reproduce it below (in accordance with the "BibleGateway.com Terms of Use Agreement"). Each line corresponds to a verse.

From worse to potentially devastating

Please read your preferred version here.

Job 2
New Life Version (NLV)

Satan Tests Job the Second Time

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to show themselves before the Lord. And Satan came with them also to show himself before the Lord.

The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From traveling around the earth and walking around on it.”

The Lord said to Satan, “Have you thought about My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth. He is without blame, a man who is right and good. He fears God and turns away from sin. He still holds to his good ways, even when I allowed you to go against him, and to destroy him for no reason.”

Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life.

Put out Your hand now and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse You to Your face.”

So the Lord said to Satan, “See, he is in your power. Only do not kill him.”

Then Satan went out from the Lord. And he made very bad sores come on Job from the bottom of his foot to the top of his head.

Job took a piece of a broken pot to try to cut off the sores while he sat among the ashes.

Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold on to your faith? Curse God and die!”

But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Should we receive good from God and not receive trouble?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Questions:
1. We see here the same set up as chapter 1, up to the point where God talks about Job. What is different about his appraisal of Job this time?
2. The Adversary makes another accusation about Job. According to the text is it true or false?
3. What condition does the Lord place on Satan's plan this time?
4. We see here that Job's wife is still alive. What solution does she offer to his affliction?
5. Rather than follow her advice, what does he do (or not do) differently in response to his affliction?
6. Why was Job sitting among the ashes?

Job’s Friends Come to Him

Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this trouble that had come upon him, they came each from his own place. They were Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. They agreed to meet together to come to share Job’s sorrow and comfort him.

And when they looked up from far away and saw how different he looked, they cried in loud voices. They tore their clothing and threw dust over their heads toward the sky.

Then they sat down on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights. No one said a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very bad.

Questions:
7. What did Job's friends do before they went to him?
8. For what purpose did they come?
9. What do their actions mean?

General talking points:
Are there any verses from Job2 you find particularly difficult, beautiful, scary, funny, whatever that you would like to talk about?


Next up Job 3 Job breaks his silence