The Book of Job

[nwhyte]

One of my reading challenges at present is to get through the entire Bible in a year. (This is not actually all that tough as an assignment - yer average Bible has around 1400 pages, so we're talking 4 pages a day.) I have to say that some of it has been a bit of a slog, even at that pace, particularly the one-sided propaganda of the history books

Comments

[steepholm]

Interesting post: I must reread Job. For some reason your reading put me in mind of these lines from Stevie Smith ("Thoughts about the Person from Porlock"):

These thoughts are depressing I know. They are depressing,
I wish I was more cheerful, it is more pleasant,
Also it is a duty, we should smile as well as submitting
To the purpose of One Above who is experimenting
With various mixtures of human character which goes best,
All is interesting for him it is exciting, but not for us.
There I go again. Smile, smile, and get some work to do
Then you will be practically unconscious without positively having to go.

[rosefox]

It's fascinating to read this back-to-back with eyeteeth's latest Book of Jonah illustration.

[nwhyte]

Thanks, that's a nice link!

[rosefox]

You're welcome! I recommend reading them all, including her commentary.

[inner_storm]

I remember this story of Job made quite an impact on me when we read it in primary school.

[tree_and_leaf]

The current critical consensus is that the beginning/ ending are the oldest parts of the book, and that Job was originally an edifying tale about how Job is tempted to despair and is rewarded (there is a reference in, I think, Ezekiel which would support this), and the poems are deconstructing it. I'm not sure if the God in Job is exactly unloving - look at the enthusiasm about Behemoth and Leviathan - but it's certainly not a human kind of love. More like an author's attitude to her characters...

I must admit that I like Esther, Tobit, and Judith, though. Especially Judith.

[nwhyte]

Hmm, interesting. But is there linguistic or other evidence to support it? I must say I find it more believable that the core poetry was subjected to later additions (Elihu and the framing narrative) than that a short prose fable was later bulked out by the insertion of a literary masterpiece. But I'm aware of my own lack of expertise; I can only report my instinctive reaction.

[tree_and_leaf]

I'm not sure about the linguistic side of it, but the account of Job's religious practice seems to be pre- (or at least non-Deuteronomistic) - he makes sacrifices, but is clearly not a priest. Also, what the

that a short prose fable was later bulked out by the insertion of a literary masterpiece.

But if the fable was already seen as being important/ significant, I can see that happening.

(The bottom line, though, is that dating any bit of the OT is a really difficult game, and most of the dates are remarkably flaky).

[anonymous]

You have misread Job.

Job condemns God as amoral. His friends are horrified, and insist that God rewards the good and punishes the evil. God responds by threatening Job for condemning God. Then he offers to reward Job for speaking truth, and to punish Job's friends for speaking falsely. The clear implication is that Job was right to describe God as amoral, but wrong to condemn God for his amorality. No other interpretation makes sense of the entirety of the text.

"briefly given voice to speak to someone who foolishly thought they knew what was going on in the world."

It is the explicit narrative position of the Book of Job that Job did, in fact, know EXACTLY what was going on in the world. The literal voice of God validates it. There was no bigger picture that Job was missing. There was a bigger person, who could enforce his amoral power with violence.

[nwhyte]

Thank you for starting this anonymous comment so rudely. It meant I did not have to read the rest of it.

[pecunium]

You're daft. That's a common interpretation of Job, but irreconcilable with the rest of the canonic books of either tradition. The various sense of the loving aspects of God are too important to both traditions for a dialogue about the amorality of God to be a central text.

[nwhyte]

Cheers. Though I fear you are wasting your time; the drive-by anonymous commenters rarely stick around for feedback.