Is the Job narrative evidence of human construction?

[marco]

To many the story of Job is an embarrassment in its artificiality and the ludicrous collusion between heaven and hell. The chorus line that follows each of the disasters that initially beset the man is "and I only am escaped alone to tell thee." Would an author today get off with what seems such a silly scenario?

We can say the story illustrates the goodness and patience of a splendid individual but what can we say about the divinity who presided over Job's tribulations?

Have the writers of the story gone too far this time in trying to illustrate God can do what he likes?

Can we find anything good to say about the God in this story?

Satan turned up at what seems to have been an absurd AGM of angels and their master and instead of being turned away he was listened to and his challenge accepted - to torture a good human being for being good.

Does this suggest the Bible sometimes wanders into nonsensical tales?

Or can we find any good in the God-Satan plot?

[marco]

Umm, I count someone who has a PhD from Harvard, is a professor of Old Testament and has been published multiple times on the subject as a "leading Job scholar."

You missed my point about modern art. I have no wish to disparage the lady and it is nice she's found a niche. There are experts who similarly comment on Macbeth and their treatises make interesting reading but both Job and Macbeth are fictions - one of them well composed.

I trust her more than you or even myself for that matter, unless you care to share your credentials. I could bring other scholars to the table as well.

Please don't - the word "scholar" is horribly abused these days and fifty interpretations of a fable do not render it true. You are correct to trust a person who has devoted much of her life to a particular subject whose central character is a composition of ancient minds. Her academic qualifications deserve admiration but when it comes to discussing God she dines with the humblest.

What? What simple folk for whom the text was written? I think it's a story that takes up some pretty serious concerns and deals with them in a pretty significant manner. It's far from simple or for "simple folk."

We are back with those who interpret rubbish art and elevate it to grandeur by their own fanciful interpretation. The ancient listeners sacrificed sheep and oxen; the writers believed heaven was up there somewhere in the sky and God descended on high hills. Let's not give them credit where none is due. Job is a silly tale. Its purpose is to instil fear of Yahweh. It succeeds in making him ridiculous, like Horace's mouse.

So your whole argument is that the writers of the bible were stupid, and didn't realize they were putting stupid words in God's mouth that contradicted God's nature.

Well it's hardly my whole argument but I agree it takes up a lot of what I am saying. The writers were artless rather than stupid. They wrote fiction and their stories do occasionally have great poetic beauty. We're not discussing that aspect here - just the sense of what has been written about Job. You (and the Great Scholars) have hijacked this tale and made it into something glorious, by courtesy of educated imagination. There is something admirable in this and scholarship too, I fancy.

As for seeing things in black and white - sometimes subtlety isn't required and a critic's sophistication interferes with the original simplicity. Best see things for what they are. I do.

[theophile]

[Replying to Willum]

So how do you explain God's role in Job?

God's role is twofold:

(1) God defends humankind against the satan - who has come from the earth to make a case that we are not worthy to rule as per God's declaration in Genesis 1. Thus God puts forth Job as evidence that we are, to make a case on our behalf.

(2) God consoles Job - in being tested, Job is treated like trash, and because of this he loses all faith in his status and role as a human being (i.e., that he was made to rule as per Genesis 1). Thus Job sits "on the ash heap," has three friends come to console him, and is consoled in the end (I would argue), after God speaks to him through the storm.

So I have researched the Bible quite a bit, and have not yet found a unique story in the Bible, Old or New. Jesus is practically verbatim for Dionysus, whom Christians later perverted.

Every tale in the OT is stolen and badly interpolated into the new culture. We have actually known, but not accepted that the Israelites never were in Egypt, or built the pyramids.

What say you?

Biblical writers clearly drew upon and played with texts of their time, just as writers do today. Sometimes, as with Proverbs, they write texts that critique "competing" wisdom literature, such as Egyptian literature in this case. Sometimes, they take a story and make slight modifications to it - such as the flood story, because it is a good story worth preserving, and in the spirit of the bible. Sometimes, as is the case with Job, they take an earlier, far simpler tale, and produce a revamped, massively ramped-up version of it. Sometimes, as is the case with Paul's letters or Revelation, they create something new entirely.

I forget what it is called, but there is an old Babylonian story, A Man and his God I think, which provides the kernel of the biblical Job story. But if you read that text, it is not the book of Job! There are layers and layers of difference... So you cannot say the book of Job is "stolen and badly interpolated." It is inspired by, and builds on other texts, yes, but it is a creative work of its own. And the fact that it still stokes discussion and thoughtfulness up to today suggests that, in fact, it transcends culture. As any good literature should.

So I would not characterize it quite as you do here. The Jews are not trying to retell what was already told but to use what was already said to help them say what they wanted to say. About God, life, whatever. Important difference.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

Look, you ask about the book of Job, but you clearly don't want to have a conversation about it.

You say that it is artless and not well composed. But have you studied its form? Have you considered why parts of it are prose and others poetry? Have you evaluated its poetry through any objective means?

All you say is that it is silly. But have you even considered the other viable interpretations? Have you even checked your interpretation against a close reading of the source text, by which I mean the original Hebrew? Have you consulted anyone who is expert? Any commentary, article, etc? Have you considered how your own view falls apart at key points that you have refused to address? Have you even tried to give the book and its writer(s) the benefit of the doubt, versus simply washing away all these points of conflict with the declaration that the book is silly, and without art?...

All your approach amounts to is an unwillingness to even try to understand. "Silly and artless" is the only thing you have to say, but without any basis.

Here are some words that Chesterton wrote about the book in his introduction to it. I highly recommend you read what he has to say on the subject:

The present importance of the book of Job cannot be expressed adequately even by saying that it is the most interesting of ancient books. We may almost say of the book of Job that it is the most interesting of modern books.

Again, if I make one point in all of this, it is that maybe, just maybe, you are missing something. It sure seems that other, highly credible, intelligent, and artful people seem to think so...

People who are far from your caricature of "ancient listeners who sacrificed sheep and oxen" that you want to disparage for some reason. As if they were without intelligence and thought.

[Willum]

[Replying to theophile]

I feel that explanation could not possibly work on anyone who didn't already ardently believe the premise. It leaves me personally flat, and abhorred - in other words, I can not even stretch my imagination to find a way to think this 'god,' isn't horrible.

and I said all stories on the New and Old Testament, not just Job, were stolen from other cultures, whose stories predated them. A futher problem with Job is it's anachronisms. It mentions Greek constellations, before they had those myths associated with them.

What does that mean? It means it mentions the constellation of Orion, for example and his belt, several thousand alleged years before the constellation was Orion, or had a belt.

Then there is the problem with Job predating other Hebrew stories... which is beyond my depth to explain, how something could be written before the events it portrayed actually (in Biblical timeline) occurred.

I'd further appreciate an explanation of these details. They certainly boggle me...

[marco]

You say that it is artless and not well composed. But have you studied its form? Have you considered why parts of it are prose and others poetry? Have you evaluated its poetry through any objective means?

Since you have been patient with my admittedly negative position I will defend myself only to say that I was reviewing the story as a Biblical insertion.

I have read Chesterton's comments - I particularly like Chesterton's poem Lepanto by the way - and he is disarmingly authoritative in his views on Job. He has a rather singular conception of God's role in the OT and his admiration of the subtleties in Job certainly pushes a cynic towards a more respectful stance.

I do discern a parallel with Hamlet in Job's predicament, his desire for death, but without Hamlet's contemplation of what may or may not follow. Lured into appreciating the poetry, I readily concede that its language is beautiful.

People who are far from your caricature of "ancient listeners who sacrificed sheep and oxen" that you want to disparage for some reason. As if they were without intelligence and thought.

I still believe they have been endowed with abilities that belong more to the minds of their learned interpreters. Be that as it may, my central concern is the depiction of God and the seeming necessity for man to tolerate whatever is thrown at him, even to the point of sacrificing one's own son. In this lurid light I read the story of Job, and though I appreciate what you and others say regarding its majesty, I cannot move so far away from God's dealings that I open my heart completely to its poetry and hence to its possible message.

And poetry is important to me. I once believed God wrote it.

Thank you for your patience and for pointing me gently in the direction of enlightenment, not without success.

[ttruscott]

Can we find anything good to say about the God in this story?

Satan did not open the question of Job, GOD did. By this we know that he was being led down the garden path for GOD's reasons. While I am not convinced this is a history at all, I accept that it says exactly what GOD wants it to say for our edification. And what do we learn?

We learn that Satan is willing to monster the most holy old man in humanity just because GOD thinks he is blameless and upright! The depth of his evil is exposed to the whole world.

That Job repents of sin while being characterized as blameless and upright is also interesting in that it is his behaviours where in he is blameless and upright but now, has had his eyes opened that a blameless and upright life doesn't fulfill the criteria for being sinless, bringing him to repentance. In other words, though upright and blameless he was susceptible to suffering and death and only the guilty suffer and die. Since no innocent suffers and dies, he came face to face with his sinfulness though his life was exemplary.

[theophile]

[Replying to Willum]

I feel that explanation could not possibly work on anyone who didn't already ardently believe the premise. It leaves me personally flat, and abhorred - in other words, I can not even stretch my imagination to find a way to think this 'god,' isn't horrible.

I would fully concur that many on this site have already passed judgment and there is no return. This is unfortunate.

and I said all stories on the New and Old Testament, not just Job, were stolen from other cultures, whose stories predated them.

I caught that. If you reread my response, you'll see that it was broader in its scope than just the book of Job. What was Revelation stolen from? From whom did Paul steal his letters? What about the gospels? Show to me the literary victim of the sermon on the mount. Or the turning of water into wine at a wedding. Or Paul's conversion on the way to Damascus...

A futher problem with Job is it's anachronisms. It mentions Greek constellations, before they had those myths associated with them. What does that mean? It means it mentions the constellation of Orion, for example and his belt, several thousand alleged years before the constellation was Orion, or had a belt.

When was the book of Job written in its final form? When does it claim to have occurred? When did Greek astronomy spread throughout the civilized world? Even if you show a gap of "several thousand" of years, which I highly doubt, what does any of this really prove about the book that matters?

Then there is the problem with Job predating other Hebrew stories... which is beyond my depth to explain, how something could be written before the events it portrayed actually (in Biblical timeline) occurred.

I'm not tracking. It was written before other Hebrew stories? What stories? Again, when did "the events it portrayed" actually occur?

I'd further appreciate an explanation of these details. They certainly boggle me...

I'm not an historian. I don't really care about such questions - though I do question why you are so concerned.. Maybe I'm just not getting the big deal. I'm more concerned more about the theological value of the text, and understanding its meaning. To me, that is the real problem.

The history of its development may shed some light but is for the most part meaningless for what concerns me.

[Willum]

[Replying to theophile]

Goodness, goodness, you are asking for an awful lot. Where would you like me to start? and when I demonstrate each one, will you change your position?

Let's scope first: They stole tales. Like Jesus is a carbon copy of Bacchus/Dionysus, who is well known for his association with turning water into wine.

Paul's letter's just ascribe those stories, it is the plagiarism, not the copying itself.
Which part of Revelations? etc..

I am happy to do, so, what will you be happy to do in return? are you ready to believe this is all a bunch of fables?

When was the book of Job written in its final form? When does it claim to have occurred? When did Greek astronomy spread throughout the civilized world? Even if you show a gap of "several thousand" of years, which I highly doubt, what does any of this really prove about the book that matters?

As far as I can tell, this is simple denial. If Job was corrupted, you can't believe it anyway. I should have said hundreds of years, not thousands, go ahead make something of it. But the principle is there, how did they write about the belt of Orion, when the constellation did not represent that hunter, but celestial beings of some other order (gods or angels - etc.?).

Job was the first recorded book of the Bible, before the book of Moses, which was the first book. It's another problem. It shouldn't be able to exist before the BOM.

So, when I demonstrate these things, insofar as they are not ridiculous ir-resolvable paradox, will you agree that the book is bubkus?

Or may we just skip to the part where you say, "that may be so, but I still believe what I believe, so all the time and effort you spent on references has been a waste of your time and I don't have to listen to it..." I apologize for jumping to this conclusion, but it has happened so many times before, "one bitten. twice shy..."

If not, where shall we begin?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 25 by marco]

Since you have been patient with my admittedly negative position I will defend myself only to say that I was reviewing the story as a Biblical insertion.

An insertion? Could you elaborate on that?

I do discern a parallel with Hamlet in Job's predicament, his desire for death, but without Hamlet's contemplation of what may or may not follow. Lured into appreciating the poetry, I readily concede that its language is beautiful.

Job desires death, yes, but we need to understand why. I would argue it is because he comes to believe that his life has no value (he is "dust and ashes"). That is what he determines as a result of his treatment by God and that is what he needs to be consoled about.

The friends fail. They try to convince Job he did something to deserve it, which he knows is not true. Does God succeed? That is the question. That is also the beauty of Job's final, ambiguous words (verse 42:6) that I mentioned have multiple viable interpretations. How we decipher them determines how we read the book as a whole.

Did God blow Job away for daring to question Him? Such that Job abhors himself, and repents in dust and ashes, in acceptance of his low position? (As you suggest?)

Or did God console Job, and restore his belief in his high calling as a human being? Such that Job recants, and is consoled about dust and ashes, realizing that he was wrong to question God's plans and perception of him? (As I suggest?)

Both are valid! The challenge is reading God's speeches real carefully to see what exactly God is saying to Job. That they are, in fact, a consolation of him and a direct address to dust and ashes. (God's speeches, I think, are extremely uplifting of the human condition that Job, and many of us for that matter, have come to lament.)

Be that as it may, my central concern is the depiction of God and the seeming necessity for man to tolerate whatever is thrown at him, even to the point of sacrificing one's own son.

Assume for a second my reading. That the satan has come to God with a case against humankind - that we do not deserve the high status / role that we have been given in Genesis 1.

What would you do if you were God? Would you not want to prove dissenters wrong? Would you not want to bring the satan back on board with your plan for creation? How else could God do this than by putting forth Job (a perfect man), and submitting Job to the satan's tests in to prove his worth and restore the satan's faith?

Most of the book again is devoted to Job's response to this test. He tolerates it, yes, but he pours out some pretty harsh words against God. Worse, in being treated like garbage he takes himself to be garbage. And sits in the ash heap. Thus the need for a consolation, and again, one of the most uplifting parts of the bible... God's speeches in 38-41.

In this lurid light I read the story of Job, and though I appreciate what you and others say regarding its majesty, I cannot move so far away from God's dealings that I open my heart completely to its poetry and hence to its possible message.

I hope you can look past your low view of God.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 28 by Willum]

I am happy to do, so, what will you be happy to do in return? are you ready to believe this is all a bunch of fables?

Have I ever suggested otherwise? I think I've always been upfront about my belief that these are all the works of human hands. That they are stories. I ascribe no historical reality to them. Again, I don't think the history is what matters... What matters is the meaning that they convey, and that we need to discern.

So no, I won't change my mind if you show similar stories elsewhere. I've already admitted them. My mind has to do with the biblical texts as we have them. My mind is focused on what they mean, not that they have historic truth value, or are without connection to other texts of the time (in some cases, very strong connections...).

I hold to my original statement on this:

Biblical writers clearly drew upon and played with texts of their time, just as writers do today. Sometimes, as with Proverbs, they wrote texts that critiqued "competing" wisdom literature, such as Egyptian literature in this case. Sometimes, they took a story and made slight modifications to it - such as the flood story, because it is a good story worth preserving, and in the spirit of the bible. Sometimes, as is the case with Job, they took an earlier, far simpler tale, and produced a revamped, massively ramped-up version of it. Sometimes, as is the case with Paul's letters or Revelation, they created something new entirely.

I don't call this "theft" but how writing works. Especially in a time unlike ours with its insistence on individual authorship. I also recognize originality where for some reason you see none. Even if there are strong parallels or ties to other texts, the bible presents them anew. They are changed. And made to convey the mind of Ancient Israel.

Job was the first recorded book of the Bible, before the book of Moses, which was the first book. It's another problem. It shouldn't be able to exist before the BOM.

So, when I demonstrate these things, insofar as they are not ridiculous ir-resolvable paradox, will you agree that the book is bubkus?

I know it is one of the oldest. I've also acknowledged a Babylonian predecessor. I don't know how this makes it false, or in any way diminishes its value. I just don't see how this impacts the meaning of the book, which is what I care about...

Is it because you think I think it is history, and that it's meaning is tied to it being history? I never said it was history... My only claims have been about its literary meaning. I have made no claims about its historical meaning, or that the events depicted actually happened, or that they happened as per the canonical order of the biblical books, or that the story even has any necessary bearing on reality...

These are not things I want to claim or argue for. The book does not need to have historic meaning to have meaning.