update from sparkleup
This commit is contained in:
parent
2b2b24704f
commit
15739113d6
|
|
@ -37,7 +37,10 @@
|
||||||
<p>–He then proceeds to discuss the book for eight pages before even getting to the translation (which, while not uncommon among the books in his translation, still stands out as rather a lot of introduction). The editors of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) agree on this, saying, “Among the books of the Bible, Job is highly unusual, and, unsurprisingly, its force has often been misunderstood or evaded.” \parencite[735]{noab} This relative inaccessibility, opaqueness of prose (should one choose to ignore the poetic nature of the central work), and the mixed dates of composition have doubtless played their role in it.</p>
|
<p>–He then proceeds to discuss the book for eight pages before even getting to the translation (which, while not uncommon among the books in his translation, still stands out as rather a lot of introduction). The editors of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) agree on this, saying, “Among the books of the Bible, Job is highly unusual, and, unsurprisingly, its force has often been misunderstood or evaded.” \parencite[735]{noab} This relative inaccessibility, opaqueness of prose (should one choose to ignore the poetic nature of the central work), and the mixed dates of composition have doubtless played their role in it.</p>
|
||||||
<p>Chief among those for our purpose is the mixed dates of composition. There appear to be four pieces involved in the book: the framing device, which is perhaps the oldest; the discourse between Job and his friends; the later addition of the Hymn to Wisdom, an interruption from Job in chapter 28; and the addition of the character of Elihu, written perhaps most recently.</p>
|
<p>Chief among those for our purpose is the mixed dates of composition. There appear to be four pieces involved in the book: the framing device, which is perhaps the oldest; the discourse between Job and his friends; the later addition of the Hymn to Wisdom, an interruption from Job in chapter 28; and the addition of the character of Elihu, written perhaps most recently.</p>
|
||||||
<p>In the Hebrew Bible, it is set in the <em>‘Ketuvim’</em> (writings, the ‘kh’ in <em>Tanakh</em>) between Proverbs and The Song of Songs. In the Christian bible, it is set at the beginning of the poetic books, between the prophets and Psalms.</p>
|
<p>In the Hebrew Bible, it is set in the <em>‘Ketuvim’</em> (writings, the ‘kh’ in <em>Tanakh</em>) between Proverbs and The Song of Songs. In the Christian bible, it is set at the beginning of the poetic books, between the prophets and Psalms.</p>
|
||||||
<p>In both cases, it is classified within the genre of wisdom literature. That is, its topic is one of scholarly, daily, or religious wisdom, something closer to education, rather than of origin stories (as is the case with many of the books of the Torah along with the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles) or prophecy (as is the case with <em>Nevi’im</em> and Revelation). This sets it among Ecclesiastes,\footnote{If Job is worth an essay, Ecclesiastes is worth a book. I do not yet have that in me.} The Song of Songs, Proverbs, and so on.</p>
|
<p>In both cases, it is classified within the genre of wisdom literature. That is, its topic is one of scholarly, daily, or religious wisdom, something closer to education, rather than of origin stories (as is the case with many of the books of the Torah along with the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles) or prophecy (as is the case with <em>Nevi’im</em> and Revelation). This sets it among Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Proverbs, and so on.</p>
|
||||||
|
<blockquote>
|
||||||
|
<p>If Job is worth an essay, Ecclesiastes is worth a book. I do not yet have that in me.</p>
|
||||||
|
</blockquote>
|
||||||
<p>Perhaps unique among wisdom literature, however, it seems to have one core thesis. Ecclesiastes has the core theses of a life well lived, self-created meaning, and wisdom, while Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach are largely compilations of vast forms of wisdom.</p>
|
<p>Perhaps unique among wisdom literature, however, it seems to have one core thesis. Ecclesiastes has the core theses of a life well lived, self-created meaning, and wisdom, while Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach are largely compilations of vast forms of wisdom.</p>
|
||||||
<p>The canonicity of Job is not in dispute. The character of Job <em>is</em> mentioned in other books of the Hebrew Bible (and thus the Septuagint, the foundation of the Christian Old Testament). Ezekiel lists him along with Noah and Daniel as one of the three exemplary, righteous men, leading to the conclusion that he must have, at the very least, existed as a folkloric figure prior to the authorship of the Book of Ezekiel.</p>
|
<p>The canonicity of Job is not in dispute. The character of Job <em>is</em> mentioned in other books of the Hebrew Bible (and thus the Septuagint, the foundation of the Christian Old Testament). Ezekiel lists him along with Noah and Daniel as one of the three exemplary, righteous men, leading to the conclusion that he must have, at the very least, existed as a folkloric figure prior to the authorship of the Book of Ezekiel.</p>
|
||||||
<p>In fact, the Talmud suggests that “Moses wrote his own book, i.e., the Torah, and the portion of Balaam in the Torah, and the book of Job.” (Bava Barta 14b, <em>etc.</em>)\nocite{sefaria} That it also suggests that Job was among those who returned from the Babylonian exile and that was not real and that it is all an allegory does little to shed light on the matter.</p>
|
<p>In fact, the Talmud suggests that “Moses wrote his own book, i.e., the Torah, and the portion of Balaam in the Torah, and the book of Job.” (Bava Barta 14b, <em>etc.</em>)\nocite{sefaria} That it also suggests that Job was among those who returned from the Babylonian exile and that was not real and that it is all an allegory does little to shed light on the matter.</p>
|
||||||
|
|
@ -66,10 +69,14 @@
|
||||||
<p>Of all of the book of Job, it is this framing device which seems to cause the most controversy. Even the Apocrypals podcast, whose tagline is “Where two non-believers read the bible and try not to be jerks about it”, drops the ‘and try not to be jerks about it’ for this episode, host Chris Sims explaining, “Unfortunately, this week we are reading the book of Job.” \parencite{apocrypals}</p>
|
<p>Of all of the book of Job, it is this framing device which seems to cause the most controversy. Even the Apocrypals podcast, whose tagline is “Where two non-believers read the bible and try not to be jerks about it”, drops the ‘and try not to be jerks about it’ for this episode, host Chris Sims explaining, “Unfortunately, this week we are reading the book of Job.” \parencite{apocrypals}</p>
|
||||||
<p>Sims’s argument boils down to the fact that this framing device leads to Job being a narrative, moral, and commercial failure: a narrative failure for not resolving any of its plot points, a moral failure because it fails to explain why bad things happen to good people, and a commercial failure because “it is the most cogent argument against religion that I have ever heard.”</p>
|
<p>Sims’s argument boils down to the fact that this framing device leads to Job being a narrative, moral, and commercial failure: a narrative failure for not resolving any of its plot points, a moral failure because it fails to explain why bad things happen to good people, and a commercial failure because “it is the most cogent argument against religion that I have ever heard.”</p>
|
||||||
<p>It’s a compelling argument, too. He goes on to explain that it is almost the inverse of Pascal’s wager, in that it “presents a world where it is impossible to distinguish between God’s wrath and God’s indifference.” Whereas Pascal would have it that there is no downside to believing in God as there is the possibility of infinite salvation if you do and you’re right and infinite damnation if you don’t and you’re wrong. Here, we are presented with the fact that, whether or not you believe in God, you’re equally liable to suffer.</p>
|
<p>It’s a compelling argument, too. He goes on to explain that it is almost the inverse of Pascal’s wager, in that it “presents a world where it is impossible to distinguish between God’s wrath and God’s indifference.” Whereas Pascal would have it that there is no downside to believing in God as there is the possibility of infinite salvation if you do and you’re right and infinite damnation if you don’t and you’re wrong. Here, we are presented with the fact that, whether or not you believe in God, you’re equally liable to suffer.</p>
|
||||||
<p>This, it should be noted, is an argument presented from a contemporary Christian perspective (Sims mentions earlier in the episode that reading the Book of Job is one of the reasons he is no longer a Christian,\footnote{Indeed, the hosts of the podcast The Bible for Normal People (tagline: The Only God-Ordained Podcast on the Internet — what is it with podcasts and their taglines?), list the difficulty and, yes, perhaps moral failure of the Book of Job as having led to a sizeable portion of the genre of apologetics within contemporary biblically literalist Christian traditions, saying, “{[}\ldots{]} that’s why you need a really hefty apologetics industry to keep {[}biblical literalism{]} intact”. \parencite{b4np}} but he still speaks from the perspective of an ex-Christian). The interpretations of the same text a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, twenty-four hundred years ago were all different. For instance, Cereno explains that the historical context of the book, written between the sixth and fourth century BCE, does not include the same context of the afterlife. The pre-biblical Jewish audience of Job when it was first penned would have had the concept of <em>Sheol</em> — that place of of stillness and darkness where both the righteous and unrighteous wind up — rather than than the contemporary understanding of an afterlife. This was written before the concept of the messiah, before heaven and hell and life after death.</p>
|
<p>This, it should be noted, is an argument presented from a contemporary Christian perspective (Sims mentions earlier in the episode that reading the Book of Job is one of the reasons he is no longer a Christian,\footnote{} but he still speaks from the perspective of an ex-Christian). The interpretations of the same text a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, twenty-four hundred years ago were all different. For instance, Cereno explains that the historical context of the book, written between the sixth and fourth century BCE, does not include the same context of the afterlife. The pre-biblical Jewish audience of Job when it was first penned would have had the concept of <em>Sheol</em> — that place of of stillness and darkness where both the righteous and unrighteous wind up — rather than than the contemporary understanding of an afterlife. This was written before the concept of the messiah, before heaven and hell and life after death.</p>
|
||||||
<p>In this context, Job’s life being torn to shreds means that his brief time here on Earth, the only time he has with nothing after it, is one that divides ones life into finite fractions, into a before, a during, and an after. Job is struck for, what, two weeks? We may only guess, as the Adversary’s second visit to the sons of God and the Lord. And yet those are two weeks out of a finite number of years.\footnote{A fantastic spot for the word ‘intercalary’, those days that fit between the years which do not fall within the calendar.</p>
|
<blockquote>
|
||||||
<p>\begin{verse}
|
<p>Indeed, the hosts of the podcast The Bible for Normal People (tagline: The Only God-Ordained Podcast on the Internet — what is it with podcasts and their taglines?), list the difficulty and, yes, perhaps moral failure of the Book of Job as having led to a sizeable portion of the genre of apologetics within contemporary biblically literalist Christian traditions, saying, “{[}\ldots{]} that’s why you need a really hefty apologetics industry to keep {[}biblical literalism{]} intact”. \parencite{b4np}</p>
|
||||||
A year starts not on January first.\
|
</blockquote>
|
||||||
|
<p>In this context, Job’s life being torn to shreds means that his brief time here on Earth, the only time he has with nothing after it, is one that divides ones life into finite fractions, into a before, a during, and an after. Job is struck for, what, two weeks? We may only guess, as the Adversary’s second visit to the sons of God and the Lord. And yet those are two weeks out of a finite number of years.</p>
|
||||||
|
<blockquote>
|
||||||
|
<p>A fantastic spot for the word ‘intercalary’, those days that fit between the years which do not fall within the calendar.</p>
|
||||||
|
<p>A year starts not on January first.\
|
||||||
\vin The days may hunder but the seasons speak\
|
\vin The days may hunder but the seasons speak\
|
||||||
of time’s long march, of fast time, slow time. Thirst\
|
of time’s long march, of fast time, slow time. Thirst\
|
||||||
\vin for “start” and “end” neglects the limen sleek.\
|
\vin for “start” and “end” neglects the limen sleek.\
|
||||||
|
|
@ -77,15 +84,18 @@
|
||||||
\vin forget about the in-betweens? Those pure\
|
\vin forget about the in-betweens? Those pure\
|
||||||
uncolored dreams made mere contrivances;\
|
uncolored dreams made mere contrivances;\
|
||||||
\vin “between the years” now simply: “year, then year”.</p>
|
\vin “between the years” now simply: “year, then year”.</p>
|
||||||
<p>\parencite[3]{eigengrau}
|
<p>\parencite[3]{eigengrau}</p>
|
||||||
\end{verse}</p>
|
<p>Our lives as a whole — indeed, as a spiral — might yet have use for interstitial, intercalary days, intercalary time. An intriguing thought, is it not?</p>
|
||||||
<p>Our lives as a whole — indeed, as a spiral — might yet have use for interstitial, intercalary days, intercalary time. An intriguing thought, is it not?}</p>
|
</blockquote>
|
||||||
<p>Job having a new family (some of them even have names!) and twice the wealth before does not replace the life that he had before, does not make up for lost children, but it does at least bring some joy for those next century and a half.</p>
|
<p>Job having a new family (some of them even have names!) and twice the wealth before does not replace the life that he had before, does not make up for lost children, but it does at least bring some joy for those next century and a half.</p>
|
||||||
<p>This centers God’s response as the sticking point. He spends four chapters responding to Job the conversations that have taken place between him and his friends. While these conversations make up the majority of the book,\footnote{Which will no doubt take up the majority of this essay.} His response solely in the context of this framing device (which, we must remember, is an older folktale which has been re-cast as a framing device for the rest of the book) gives us a particular flavor of ‘God works in mysterious ways’ with more nuance than one commonly finds when that phrase is employed.</p>
|
<p>This centers God’s response as the sticking point. He spends four chapters responding to Job the conversations that have taken place between him and his friends. While these conversations make up the majority of the book, His response solely in the context of this framing device (which, we must remember, is an older folktale which has been re-cast as a framing device for the rest of the book) gives us a particular flavor of ‘God works in mysterious ways’ with more nuance than one commonly finds when that phrase is employed.</p>
|
||||||
<p>God appears to Job and his friends and expounds on the fact that none of them do — nor indeed can — possibly understand the ways in which he works. They’re not just mysterious, they’re vast and incomprehensible. This makes the most sense in a panentheistic view. If He is outside time, then, from our point of view, those ways stretch both forwards and back. If they envelop and pervade all things tangible and intangible, then they are beyond even our causal domain.</p>
|
<p>God appears to Job and his friends and expounds on the fact that none of them do — nor indeed can — possibly understand the ways in which he works. They’re not just mysterious, they’re vast and incomprehensible. This makes the most sense in a panentheistic view. If He is outside time, then, from our point of view, those ways stretch both forwards and back. If they envelop and pervade all things tangible and intangible, then they are beyond even our causal domain.</p>
|
||||||
<p>Even in a grounded, Jahwist, immediate and physical view of God (He is, after all, there in the form of a whirlwind), his entrance comes off as bizarre and unnerving. He passes through the physical plane as the Sphere does through the Square’s planar existence. Even in so physical a form, He proves His very incomprehensibility.</p>
|
<p>Even in a grounded, Jahwist, immediate and physical view of God (He is, after all, there in the form of a whirlwind), his entrance comes off as bizarre and unnerving. He passes through the physical plane as the Sphere does through the Square’s planar existence. Even in so physical a form, He proves His very incomprehensibility.</p>
|
||||||
<p>And if He does not exist? The folktale and the book as a whole do not depend on the existence of God in their interpretation. They still work to repudiate the idea that, if bad things happen to you, it is because you’re a bad person.</p>
|
<p>And if He does not exist? The folktale and the book as a whole do not depend on the existence of God in their interpretation. They still work to repudiate the idea that, if bad things happen to you, it is because you’re a bad person.</p>
|
||||||
<p>These interpretations are doing a lot of heavy lifting, however. They accept at face value Job’s capitulation in chapter 40, where, after being thoroughly excoriated by no less than God Himself, he says, “Look, I am worthless. What can I say back to You?” (Job 40:4, Alter) and “I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but will proceed no further.” (Job 40:5, NRSV)\footnote{Alter has, “My hand I put over my mouth. Once have I spoken and I will not answer, twice, and will not go on.” This captures the poetic nature\footnotemark~of the rest of the book in a delightfully austere way, but the NRSV provides a simpler, if less poetic version, included for the sake of clarity on this point in particular.}\footnotetext{I figured I was done with Weinberger’s text when I finished the previous essay,\footnotemark~and yet here I am once more, leaning on him. “In its way a spiritual exercise, translation is dependent on the dissolution of the translator’s ego: an absolute humility toward the text.” \parencite[20]{wangwei} It does rather raise the question, though, how much reading a single-translator text such as Alter’s or David Bently Hart’s take on the New Testament can be an act of intent. Weinberger goes on to say, “A bad translation is the insistent voice of the translator — that is, when one sees no poet and hears only the translator speaking.”</p>
|
<p>These interpretations are doing a lot of heavy lifting, however. They accept at face value Job’s capitulation in chapter 40, where, after being thoroughly excoriated by no less than God Himself, he says, “Look, I am worthless. What can I say back to You?” (Job 40:4, Alter) and “I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but will proceed no further.” (Job 40:5, NRSV)</p>
|
||||||
|
<blockquote>
|
||||||
|
<p>Alter has, “My hand I put over my mouth. Once have I spoken and I will not answer, twice, and will not go on.” This captures the poetic nature of the rest of the book in a delightfully austere way, but the NRSV provides a simpler, if less poetic version, included for the sake of clarity on this point in particular.</p>
|
||||||
|
<p>I figured I was done with Weinberger’s text when I finished the previous essay, and yet here I am once more, leaning on him. “In its way a spiritual exercise, translation is dependent on the dissolution of the translator’s ego: an absolute humility toward the text.” \parencite[20]{wangwei} It does rather raise the question, though, how much reading a single-translator text such as Alter’s or David Bently Hart’s take on the New Testament can be an act of intent. Weinberger goes on to say, “A bad translation is the insistent voice of the translator — that is, when one sees no poet and hears only the translator speaking.”</p>
|
||||||
<p>Mackenzie Morgan, however, makes the point that single-translator Bibles can offer some welcome divergence in viewpoints, as the committees that translate Bibles such as the NRSV “tend toward traditional translations; whereas a single translator can say, “Hang on, I think this actually means…”\,” \parencite{maconix-bibles}</p>
|
<p>Mackenzie Morgan, however, makes the point that single-translator Bibles can offer some welcome divergence in viewpoints, as the committees that translate Bibles such as the NRSV “tend toward traditional translations; whereas a single translator can say, “Hang on, I think this actually means…”\,” \parencite{maconix-bibles}</p>
|
||||||
<p>We are talking about the Bible, though. We’re not talking about Wang Wei. We’re not talking about Dwale. As before,</p>
|
<p>We are talking about the Bible, though. We’re not talking about Wang Wei. We’re not talking about Dwale. As before,</p>
|
||||||
<p>\begin{verse}
|
<p>\begin{verse}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -93,21 +103,30 @@ I do not know which to prefer, \
|
||||||
The beauty of inflections \
|
The beauty of inflections \
|
||||||
or the beauty of innuendoes</p>
|
or the beauty of innuendoes</p>
|
||||||
<p>\parencite{blackbird}
|
<p>\parencite{blackbird}
|
||||||
\end{verse}}\footnotetext{I thought I was done talking about Dwale, too, and yet here we are.}</p>
|
\end{verse}</p>
|
||||||
|
<p>I thought I was done talking about Dwale, too, and yet here we are.</p>
|
||||||
|
</blockquote>
|
||||||
<p>Who can blame Job? God is quite frankly terrifying. No matter how strongly I might call God to account, I strongly suspect that I, too, would fall flat on my face and do what I could to have so terrible a gaze move away from me.</p>
|
<p>Who can blame Job? God is quite frankly terrifying. No matter how strongly I might call God to account, I strongly suspect that I, too, would fall flat on my face and do what I could to have so terrible a gaze move away from me.</p>
|
||||||
<p>But one must wonder just how much longer that desire to call God to account must have lingered in Job’s heart afterwards. He lived another 140 years; did he forget his ten children? Did he forget those thousands of heads of livestock? For doubtless he had favorites! Did he still think of his great abundance of slaves? Did he think of these late at night even though he had ten new children, new favorite sheep, a new abundance of slaves? He must have. For our sakes, he must have.</p>
|
<p>But one must wonder just how much longer that desire to call God to account must have lingered in Job’s heart afterwards. He lived another 140 years; did he forget his ten children? Did he forget those thousands of heads of livestock? For doubtless he had favorites! Did he still think of his great abundance of slaves? Did he think of these late at night even though he had ten new children, new favorite sheep, a new abundance of slaves? He must have. For our sakes, he must have.</p>
|
||||||
<p>And yet, that’s the thing. So many of these arguments for and against the validity and importance of this book center God. It is the bible, of course, and that is often what one must do in a sacred text.</p>
|
<p>And yet, that’s the thing. So many of these arguments for and against the validity and importance of this book center God. It is the bible, of course, and that is often what one must do in a sacred text.</p>
|
||||||
<p>Our Job, though, our poor, ruined man, has he changed? Has he grown into something new? Has he integrated who he was during those weeks or months of grief with who he was before that? Has he built for himself a new identity? Has he become braver? More fearful?</p>
|
<p>Our Job, though, our poor, ruined man, has he changed? Has he grown into something new? Has he integrated who he was during those weeks or months of grief with who he was before that? Has he built for himself a new identity? Has he become braver? More fearful?</p>
|
||||||
<p>There is a saying that, with near-death experiences, there are two likely outcomes. One is that you become a braver, more vivacious person. You live your life all the fuller because you got so close to not living at all. After all, if you have been given a second chance, why not?</p>
|
<p>There is a saying that, with near-death experiences, there are two likely outcomes. One is that you become a braver, more vivacious person. You live your life all the fuller because you got so close to not living at all. After all, if you have been given a second chance, why not?</p>
|
||||||
<p>But still, there’s that second option: you become consumed by fear. You freeze up and do not leave the house. Any potential source of death is a thing to become avoided.\footnote{It need not be permanent, of course. When the me who I was died and I lived my intercalary life, terror filled me, yes, but not for long. Matthew died, and I was nothing but fear for years, and then Madison was born, replacing fear.}</p>
|
<p>But still, there’s that second option: you become consumed by fear. You freeze up and do not leave the house. Any potential source of death is a thing to become avoided.</p>
|
||||||
|
<blockquote>
|
||||||
|
<p>It need not be permanent, of course. When the me who I was died and I lived my intercalary life, terror filled me, yes, but not for long. Matthew died, and I was nothing but fear for years, and then Madison was born, replacing fear.</p>
|
||||||
|
</blockquote>
|
||||||
<p>This is no value judgement. To be consumed by fear after having your own mortality stand up before you, sneer down its nose, and give you a playful shove bears no shame. It is an honest acceptance of who you are in the face of the enormity of the universe.</p>
|
<p>This is no value judgement. To be consumed by fear after having your own mortality stand up before you, sneer down its nose, and give you a playful shove bears no shame. It is an honest acceptance of who you are in the face of the enormity of the universe.</p>
|
||||||
<p>And sure, it might be a spectrum, and there’s probably that absolute midpoint where there is no change. You make it through that brush with death and come out the other side precisely the same as you were before. There is terror in this prospect, that death might be so overwhelming that there is nothing you can do but wrap that experience up in butcher paper, tie it with twine, and set it up in the attic.</p>
|
<p>And sure, it might be a spectrum, and there’s probably that absolute midpoint where there is no change. You make it through that brush with death and come out the other side precisely the same as you were before. There is terror in this prospect, that death might be so overwhelming that there is nothing you can do but wrap that experience up in butcher paper, tie it with twine, and set it up in the attic.</p>
|
||||||
<p>Alter argues that the names that Job gives his new daughters points to a change. “The writer may have wanted to intimate that after all Job’s suffering, which included hideous disfigurement and violent loss, a principle of grace and beauty enters his life in the restoration of his fortunes.” \parencite[579]{alter} This is indeed a beautiful take on it, too. Job comes out the other side and names his daughters after growing things, beautiful things. Dove and Cinnamon and Horn of Eyeshade, the most beautiful in the land and a sign of Job’s joy in living.\footnote{One worries,\footnotemark~however, that this is not what happened. Folktales are folktales and there is only so much we can tease out of the text itself. That Job names his daughters and lives another 140 years before dying of old age provides little enough context as to his state of mind. We, of course, have other resources. The Anglicans have their three-legged stool — scripture, tradition, reason — and the Methodists their Wesleyan quadrilateral — which adds ‘experience’ — and so we have at our disposal tradition, reason, and experience beyond just the scripture itself.}\footnotetext{Or, well, <em>I</em> worry. I do not think many apologists worry, and this is not a work of apologetics. I am not an apologist, and whether or not I even believe in God is up in the air.}</p>
|
<p>Alter argues that the names that Job gives his new daughters points to a change. “The writer may have wanted to intimate that after all Job’s suffering, which included hideous disfigurement and violent loss, a principle of grace and beauty enters his life in the restoration of his fortunes.” \parencite[579]{alter} This is indeed a beautiful take on it, too. Job comes out the other side and names his daughters after growing things, beautiful things. Dove and Cinnamon and Horn of Eyeshade, the most beautiful in the land and a sign of Job’s joy in living.</p>
|
||||||
|
<blockquote>
|
||||||
|
<p>One worries, however, that this is not what happened. Folktales are folktales and there is only so much we can tease out of the text itself. That Job names his daughters and lives another 140 years before dying of old age provides little enough context as to his state of mind. We, of course, have other resources. The Anglicans have their three-legged stool — scripture, tradition, reason — and the Methodists their Wesleyan quadrilateral — which adds ‘experience’ — and so we have at our disposal tradition, reason, and experience beyond just the scripture itself.</p>
|
||||||
|
<p>Or, well, <em>I</em> worry. I do not think many apologists worry, and this is not a work of apologetics. I am not an apologist, and whether or not I even believe in God is up in the air.</p>
|
||||||
|
</blockquote>
|
||||||
<p>The Book of Job asks a question. It is the question of theodicy: “why is there suffering in the world?” How could a God who is omnicient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent allow suffering to happen? If He is all-knowing and all-powerful, can he be all-good if he allows life to suffer? If he is all-knowing and all-good, can he not stop the suffering?</p>
|
<p>The Book of Job asks a question. It is the question of theodicy: “why is there suffering in the world?” How could a God who is omnicient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent allow suffering to happen? If He is all-knowing and all-powerful, can he be all-good if he allows life to suffer? If he is all-knowing and all-good, can he not stop the suffering?</p>
|
||||||
<p>So far, however, we have just looked at the framing device. It raises the question while glossing over the answer itself, waving it away in favor of allowing Job to come out all the better in the end. Happily-ever-afters are for folktales, yes, but our folktale occupies only 1/14th of the book itself. What remains is the denser part and, should we see change in Job, it is perhaps here that we will.</p>
|
<p>So far, however, we have just looked at the framing device. It raises the question while glossing over the answer itself, waving it away in favor of allowing Job to come out all the better in the end. Happily-ever-afters are for folktales, yes, but our folktale occupies only 1/14th of the book itself. What remains is the denser part and, should we see change in Job, it is perhaps here that we will.</p>
|
||||||
</article>
|
</article>
|
||||||
<footer>
|
<footer>
|
||||||
<p>Page generated on 2023-01-04</p>
|
<p>Page generated on 2023-02-13</p>
|
||||||
</footer>
|
</footer>
|
||||||
</main>
|
</main>
|
||||||
<script type="text/javascript">
|
<script type="text/javascript">
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -22,7 +22,11 @@
|
||||||
</ol>
|
</ol>
|
||||||
<p>Rewrite for side-by-side:</p>
|
<p>Rewrite for side-by-side:</p>
|
||||||
<ol>
|
<ol>
|
||||||
<li><a href="1-framing-devices.html">Framing devices</a></li>
|
<li><a href="1-framing-devices.html">Framing devices</a><ol>
|
||||||
|
<li><a href="1-personal.html">Personal</a></li>
|
||||||
|
<li><a href="1-academic.html">Academic</a></li>
|
||||||
|
</ol>
|
||||||
|
</li>
|
||||||
<li><a href="2-interpolations.html">Interpolations</a></li>
|
<li><a href="2-interpolations.html">Interpolations</a></li>
|
||||||
<li><a href="3-friends.html">Friends and “Friends”</a></li>
|
<li><a href="3-friends.html">Friends and “Friends”</a></li>
|
||||||
<li><a href="4-unknown.html">Unknown things</a> (theodicy)</li>
|
<li><a href="4-unknown.html">Unknown things</a> (theodicy)</li>
|
||||||
|
|
@ -60,7 +64,7 @@
|
||||||
</code></pre></div>
|
</code></pre></div>
|
||||||
</article>
|
</article>
|
||||||
<footer>
|
<footer>
|
||||||
<p>Page generated on 2023-01-04</p>
|
<p>Page generated on 2023-02-13</p>
|
||||||
</footer>
|
</footer>
|
||||||
</main>
|
</main>
|
||||||
<script type="text/javascript">
|
<script type="text/javascript">
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue