I don’t have a Bible at hand, but I thought Job’s criticism was certainly implied. It’s not going to be explicit. I mean, he was talking directly to God. Certainly it was worthwhile to try to make his place, but calling him unjust in so many words would be…stupid.
He never does, implicitly or explicitly. More importantly, he doesn’t before, during or after his encounter. In other words, he doesn’t have to eat any words he said about God----even implied criticisms------that he said to anyone. In fact, his attitude toward God is always shown as loving, warm and close. He never grinds an ax towards God during all his trials.
In fact his attitude during his “talk” with God was one of complete humility and contrition. Complete.
I will reread it once I am home and get back to you, okay?
cool
Job 1:20-22:*["20 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship 21 and said:
“Naked I came from my mother’s womb,
and naked I will depart.[a]
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised.”
22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing. "](Job 1:20-22 NIV - At this, Job got up and tore his robe - Bible Gateway)* NIV
ETA several translations say Job did not “blame God.”
I’ve always suspected that most bible-study groups have become very adept at not reading the Bible, in a “reading it” kind of way.
That is to say, in a Bible study group you’ll go over the story and maybe read a few choice quotes. But you’ll spend most of the time discussing what it means, and what you’re supposed to take away from it. So you go away from it, believing you’ve read the text closely and formed your own opinions about it when, really, you’ve done nothing of the sort.
Was there ever such a group where they have you read the whole of the text directly from a Bible, and then leave you alone to make of it what you will, as opposed to the whole thing with work-sheets, bullet points, and “discussions?” For example, in Australia, where we have scripture classes in school, I was always left with the impression that the story of Lot ended at the bit where his wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt. It doesn’t. And somehow, we always managed to skip the part where Lot offers his daughters up to be raped and murdered by the mob, instead of his guests. I’m sure I would have noticed that bit.
Well, in line with my previous post, I have to disagree with you there. To my mind, the majority of proposed study/reading methods are designed to stop you engaging with the text, in case you should accidentally understand what it’s really getting at.
I think that’s a fairly minor point, when the book of of Job more or less implies that God is a liar.
God claims a higher purpose, beyond the wit or understanding of a mere mortal like Job. But the opening of the book goes like this:
-
God boasts to Satan about what a good follower Job is.
-
Satan bets God that he can make Job turn.
-
God accepts the bet.
Yeah, right. Higher purpose.
It’s really not a very well written text. It’s trying to be a platonic dialog, but since the writer is an uneducated goat-herder from the middle east, he can’t quite muster the rhetorical rigor of the Greek philosophers, or the wit of Socrates.
In the context of the whole book, I think it is a minor point. I simply responded to the notion that Job had somehow blamed God, or somehow had a complaint against God. But the text doesn’t indicate that anywhere. Quite the contrary.
I agree that many “study methods” take people away from the text (keeping people from being “engaged”) and so it might be best to engage the text.
Can you show me this from the texts?
ETA can you show me from the texts where “the book of of Job more or less implies that God is a liar”?
I’d like to see that first.
This is Job 1:8-12 – the set-up for the story:
Basically, it’s a bet. Satan’s saying, “I bet he wouldn’t love you if you kicked his ass.” And God says, “You’re on. Do your worst, buddy.”
After Job complains, and God comes down to answer him, God somehow doesn’t mention the bet, but spends four chapters (38-41) boasting about how powerful and knowledgeable he is.
Job is invited to contemplate his own poor treatment as if it were on the same level as things like laying the foundations of the earth (38:4), comprehending the expanse of the earth (38:18), knowing the ordinances of the heavens and establishing their rule on earth (38:33).
But of course, Jobs poor treatment is nothing along those lines. It was just a silly little bet with Satan. And there’s no mea culpa on God’s part, just: “Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” (40:8) This is, at the very least, misleading, deceptive, and bullying.
And chapter 42 makes it clear that Job has allowed himself to be mislead:
Is having a bit of a wager with Satan on the side really a “thing too wonderful for me, which I did not know?”
I appreciate the cite. However you appear to be doing the same extra-curricular editorializing you mentioned here:
How is this post not essentially saying “When they deviate from the texts and editorialize it’s not cool, but when I do its bible truth” ?(pun intended)
I mean without regard to doctrine (and if it makes it cleaner to have this discussion I’ll take the position of an atheist) the texts don’t say anything like that.
Without all the dramatic (and unfounded) extra language you’ve inserted it is clear that Satan makes the point/ challenge that this Job fellow is serving God because it’s easy; that his "service’ to God is colored----if not predicated----on the fact that God has blessed him.
And so that is the opening salvo/ challenge that opens the book of Job; the question as to what motivates people to serve God. Are they serving him because of what they’re getting out of it?; or is there some other reason?
Now you skipped from Chapter 1 to 38, and that’s not important right now, other than to note that another [parallel] theme develops over those 37 chapters.
In any event, the texts do not indicate:
- boasting
- a “bet”
- any talk of “why bad things happen to good people”
- any implication that “God is a liar”
- any “theological conundrum[s]” (?)
- that Job complains about God at any point in the whole book
- the book doesn’t ask—or answer—“If God is good, then why does evil exist?”
Yes, you’re quite right. Skald is misremembering this part.
He misremembers it because God accuses Job of doing this, even though he didn’t.
“Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” [ibid]
I am that.
But my point is, I’m reading it and making up my own mind, rather than simply accepting the party line.
If I’m mistaken on any point, please feel free to correct me.
Well, there is what it says, and then there are the party lines.
You are entitled to yours, they are entitled to theirs.
But the moment we insist our story is not a party line but this thing called ‘truth’ we are simply exposing our own brand of faith. We are witnessing.
In any event, you have not accurately represented what the text says, but rather “what you’ve taken away from it.”
(I’ve noted 7 corrections)
That’s just dressing up the word “bet” in pretty language.
In fact, this is another way that Christians (particularly fundamentalists) avoid engaging with what the text actually implies. They favor the King James version with all it’s florid, archaic language (and it was archaic, not just today, but in the day it was published). I quoted from the RSV, and it was still opaque enough that I had to paraphrase it to make my point clear.
Modern, plain-English translations like the Good News Bible take the opportunity to elide all the dodgy stuff. But obviously that’s not enough. People hate the plain English versions. Obviously, they let too much of the actual meaning of the text penetrate their walls of faith.
The truth is, the faithful like the text obfuscated. And they really hate it when someone points out what the story seems to imply. But that’s just too bad, because I really don’t see how you could interpret chapter 38 as anything other than boasting. Boasting is the whole of God’s argument. He really doesn’t say anything much of anything else other than how bloody awesome he is, and he keeps on saying it over and over, relentlessly, until Job throws up his hands and says, “all right already.”
As someone who takes an interest in philosophy, I’ll agree with you that truth is an extremely difficult and slippery concept.
I will make no claim other than that I’m presenting an argument. It’s not a party line, because I’m stating my own impressions of the book of Job, rather than, for example, anything I might have read on The Secular Web. If I persuade anyone to my opinion that Job is not a very good text, then good; but if not, then so be it.
I think I’ll bow out at this point, because these sorts of exchanges get too hot too quickly to be very productive.