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?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 50 by marco]

theophile wrote:

Some people genuinely believe in their products and want to make them better. In this case, since dealing with a literary product, this means more artfully conveying the message. Or having a more refined message. Not just to drive "belief" metrics but for the same reason anyone pursues truth and knowledge and wants to share it with the world.

You have perfectly conveyed what modern minds do with an old message: they read sophistication into it. As it becomes harder to accept old stories, in the light of advancement, they are retold as metaphors and old discrepancies are ingeniously explained away.

Couple corrections:

1. Not just modern minds. This is a process that cuts across history and disciplines for that matter - science, economics, theology, engineering...

2. It is not that "they read sophistication into it." There may have been some of that going on, sure, but there was also other motivations. i.e., They rightly saw a kernel of wisdom that was worth preserving, and refining...

If we look at Plato for a second. Are we to take all the neo-Platonists up to today as simply "reading sophistication into" Plato's works? Come on. There is genuinely good stuff there worth discussing, mining, refining, representing, making new...

[marco]

1. Not just modern minds. This is a process that cuts across history and disciplines for that matter - science, economics, theology, engineering...

The fact I mentioned "old stories" indicates I'm being restrictive.

2. If we look at Plato for a second. Are we to take all the neo-Platonists up to today as simply "reading sophistication into" Plato's works? Come on. There is genuinely good stuff there worth discussing, mining, refining, representing, making new...

We needn't bother looking at Plato for a second. I have the greatest admiration for him and his methodology. He is hardly included in "old stories." I should have said that I was discussing old biblical stories, and in this case, the tale of Job. I'm not opening criticism to the venerable host of ancient writers. I can read Cicero or Seneca and learn a lesson, but this is a rare occurrence when I read the OT.

[ttruscott]

My personal take on this from my pce perspective is that Job probably accepted this job as Job before his conception. If so, it was a tough job and I will shake his hand when we meet.

In my world this makes little sense.

Trust me, PCE made no sense to me at first but it vexed me for years. I felt compelled to figure out how it could work and slowly bit by bit it started to be sensible, more sensible than orthodoxy and the blasphemies it must accept to be true to itself.

By the time I got to Job, his story fit into the PCE system very well.

The evil within the good deeds of men is hidden but it is there. Christian doctrine is pretty well agreed only GOD's grace has salvatory power without which a lack of bad deeds in meaningless.

Again, in my world the good deed is defined by its intention. There is no culpability for what was never intended.

No matter how a dog might act like a cat, its nature is still canine, not feline. The Christians who accept humans as having a sinful nature seem to mostly suggest that our first choice to rebel against GOD changes us in our very nature to be sinful. This doesn't stop us acting in an ordinary moral way, loving, generous etc but implies that these acts have no ability to change our natures back to be as GOD created us, nor can they be completely purely morally righteous but will always contain an impulse from our nature of selfishness, self righteousness and pride. That our unconscious intentions often betray our overt conscious decisions is well known.

No free will = no allowance of evil and no love, no righteousness, no holiness and especially no true marriage for a forced marriage is a rape, not true marriage at all.

I have seen people arguing in this convoluted way and it is intriguing. Basically God is responsible for what he planned. His toy soldiers did not come with the ability to create disasters and tragedies. He made these things. The evil that results from wrong decisions was made by God - or at least the being in that designated role.

You need a god who is guilty to presuppose no god at all. I need a GOD who is righteous when evil abounds in me so I have to have had a free will and an undetermined fate so I could choose my own fate.

I used to live in a deterministic universe without GOD, very existential and very depressing. Depression fueled anger to avoid self destruction. It was a bad time for all and it only ended with my rebirth into Christianity.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 52 by marco]

We needn't bother looking at Plato for a second. I have the greatest admiration for him and his methodology. He is hardly included in "old stories." I should have said that I was discussing old biblical stories, and in this case, the tale of Job. I'm not opening criticism to the venerable host of ancient writers. I can read Cicero or Seneca and learn a lesson, but this is a rare occurrence when I read the OT.

What? Please tell me what separates these ancient writers from OT writers and why the former are "venerable"?

If you haven't learned any lessons from the OT, maybe you need to read a little more closely.

This sounds grossly subjective...

[marco]

Trust me, PCE made no sense to me at first but it vexed me for years. I felt compelled to figure out how it could work and slowly bit by bit it started to be sensible, more sensible than orthodoxy and the blasphemies it must accept to be true to itself.

I spent a lot of time at university working out how Proust's massive A la Recherche du Temps Perdu deserved acclaim, but now when I dip a biscuit into my tea, I think I understand Proust a little better. You are a lovely person, Ted, and you have likewise put a massive amount of thought into your theology but it is too abstruse. Fascinating but not for me.

You need a god who is guilty to presuppose no god at all. I need a GOD who is righteous when evil abounds in me so I have to have had a free will and an undetermined fate so I could choose my own fate.

You belittle my struggles in theology, such as they are. I have little patience with Yahweh, it is true, and his various misadventures suggest fiction to me. However, the greater mystery of who, what, why and how is not something to be so arrogantly dismissed. I don't know and I accept my ignorance. At present it seems to me that the grave holds on to its captives; I would be interested to see proof that this is not so.

[marco]

What? Please tell me what separates these ancient writers from OT writers and why the former are "venerable"?

I call them venerable because I like them. As a boy translating Virgil, Horace and Ovid I saw through Paul's glass darkly. Catullus and Petronius of course were verboten and Plato was an imposition on my student days. But I rose from them, as from the literature of other countries. I read the OT with something close to disgust.
"What manner of men were they whom ye slew at Tabor?" I don't really care. Only in David's weakness and in fact in the plaintive outburst of Christ, on being forsaken, do I feel the salt sadness of compassion.

If you haven't learned any lessons from the OT, maybe you need to read a little more closely.

Pliny, I believe, said no book is so bad you can learn nothing from it. There are beautiful passages in the Bible, spoiled by constant pillage, killings, punishments, childishness and Jeremiah's incessant moaning. If I want to hear of war I read All Quiet on the Western Front or dip into Brooke or Wilfred Owen.

Is this grossly subjective? Perhaps life is, too.