Actually, Job 14:7-12 is even stronger in Job's denial of an after life.
This is from the NET Bible translation:
14:7 "But there is hope for18 a tree:19
If it is cut down, it will sprout again,
and its new shoots will not fail.
14:8 Although its roots may grow old20 in the ground
and its stump begins to die21 in the soil,22
14:9 at the scent23 of water it will flourish24and put forth25 shoots
like a new plant.
14:10 But man26 dies and is powerless;27
he expires--and where is he?28
14:11 As29 water disappears from the sea,30
or a river drains away and dries up,
14:12 so man lies down and does not rise;
until the heavens are no more,31
they32 will not awake
nor arise from their sleep.
It is well known among scholars that for most of OT times the Hebrews do
not have a well developed concept of the afterlife. Neither God nor Job's
friends, for example, say that Job will be rewarded in the afterlife. And
after the suffering is over, Job is rewarded in this life.Deuteronomy
promises many blessings for obeying the law, including a long life-NOT life
after death.Acording to Brown, the dueterocanonical book, Ecclestiacus, AKA
Sirach, also explicitly denies an afterlife, and this book is dated on
internal evidence to 180 B.C.
It is only in late OT times, that there begins to be talk of an afterlife
(II Macabees and Daniel, both written during the times of the Maccabean
wars[175-134 B.C.], are the first to talk of the afterlife).
I don't know where Christian Science theolgy is on this, but the scholarly
consensus on the OT is quite firm about this.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Stuart d Kirkley
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:45 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: The Bible: human word of the almighty God.doc
An interesting post, except that I fail to see how Job 14:13-22 is
any denial of an afterlife. There really doesn't seem to be any
explicit, implicit, or even any allusion to the denial of an
afterlife. Maybe i'm wrong, but I read it through several times and
the whole chapter as well, and I don't see it. What it says to me is
that Job is simply bemoaning the frailty of mortal existence, and
that is all. There really doesn't seem to be any reference to the
immortal soul, or I should say, the denial of it. There might be
something in verses 10-12 which refers to this , but again I think
Job is referring to mortal existence, not immortal life, he even says
that they shall not be raised out of their sleep. If their is no
afterlife, then how can they even be asleep, no afterlife means no
life whatsoever, ie: the complete obliteration of existence, yet Job
never says this at all. He is simply lamenting the suffering sense of
mortal existence, I really don't see any denial of i!
mmo
rtality here. I'm afraid you will have to prove me wrong if you
maintain there is such denial. If Brown maintains this, then I have
to consider his work and premise as being suspect. Error results not
from the truth which is contained in the scriptures, but by the human
reading of them, or should I say, misreading of them.
Stuart K.
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:31:26
Shuan Rose wrote:
>
>
>
>This is a two-part post on the important issue of how we should view the
>Bible. The title of this post is taken from chapter one of the book ¦The
>Critical Meaning of the Bible" by the late Raymond E. Brown, S. S. Brown
was
>a Catholic New Testament scholar who spent a substantial portion of his
life
>advocating for the validity of a modern reading of the Bible. By "modern
>reading" Mr. Brown meant a reading informed by biblical criticism, which he
>defined as "an analysis such as one would use for determining the meaning
of
>other ancient literature." He argues that such an analysis is needed
>because "no 20th-century church" is the same as a church or churches of new
>Testament Times, and that inevitably 20th-century Christians have a
>worldview different from that of first century Christians". A lot of people
>may object that a Roman Catholic scholar who espouses the
>historical-critical method has nothing to say to a (mostly) Protestant
list
>of scientists who are suspicious of such an approach to Scriptural
>interpretation. However, I am convinced that the recipients of this list
>would profit by at least considering what he has to say.
>
>Brown asks the question, "What does it mean when we call the Bible the word
>of God"? He asks, "Does God speak?" Since most would agree that God does
>not speak in terms of emitting sound waves, then any revelation from God
>necessarily comes through human mediation. ¦If God does not actually speak
>words (external or internal) one must admit clearly and firmly that every
>word pertaining to God in the history of the human race including the
>biblical period is a time conditioned word, affected by the limitations of
>human insight and problems. The attribution of a word to God, Jesus, or
the
>church would not enable that word to escape that limitation." This is
>Raymond Brown's thesis.
>
>He considers and rejects liberal approaches to the question, which claim
>that the Bible is simply the word of man. He also rejects a conservative
>approach exemplified by Carl HenryÃs statement, "the Bible is a
>propositional revelation of the unchanging truth of God." He argues that
>this collapses inspiration into revelation. The traditional view is that
>the whole Bible is inspired but only some parts transmit revelation. Brown
>argues that some authors believe that they received divine communications
>(St. Paul, Amos), whereas others (for example the writer of Ecclesiastes)
>make no such claim.
>
>Even when we turn to the law and prophets, where the writers are conscious
>of having received a divine revelation, we find different ways of
expressing
>the word of God received by them. There is a poetic and prose form of the
>same oracle (compare Jeremiah 7 with Jeremiah 26). Prophetic oracles
appear
>to conflict (Isaiah 2:1;compare Joel 3:10 RSV). There are also two
versions
>of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 1217; Deuteronomy 5: 6-21). According
>to Brown, the biblical critic would be inclined to say that message is from
>God but the words are from particular human authors, and are a
>¦reformulation of an unspecified divine revelation". He argues that even
in
>the words of Jesus it is dubious that one encounters an unconditional,
>timeless word from God. ¦The Son of God who speaks in the... gospels is a
>Jew of the first third of the first century, who thinks in the images of
his
>time, speaks the idiom of his time, and shares much of the worldview of his
>time."
>
>Brown discusses the problem of inerrancy. He argues that attempts to
>explain away errors and inconsistencies in scripture often do more harm
than
>good. He says that there is indisputable evidence of not only scientific,
>but also historical errors in the Bible. (He cites DanielÃs mistakes about
>the timing of various Babylonian interventions). He goes on to state that
>there are even theological errors. For instance, Job 14: 13 -22 denies the
>possibility of an afterlife.
>
>He argues that there are two approaches that one can take. You can decide a
>priori that there can be no errors in the Bible, and that the writer does
>not mean what he appears to state. He describes the approach as ¦an
>unmitigated disaster resulting in the acceptance of numerous
>implausibilities and turning exegesis into apologetics." Another
approach
>is ¦to realize that there is a kenosis involved in God communicating his
>message in human words... if one discovers (errors), one does not seek to
>explain them away; one recognizes that God is willing to work with human
>beings and other limitations, and each contribution is only part of a
larger
>presentation of biblical truth."
>
>The human author of Job was wrong in denying an afterlife. However, his
>book is now part of a canonical collection that includes later parts of the
>Old Testament, which speak of an afterlife (Isaiah 26; Daniel 12), and a
New
>Testament that unanimously affirms an afterlife, and so "the author's
>rejection of an afterlife" can be seen in the context of the "gradual
>perception of a larger truth."
>
>How then can the Bible be regarded as inerrant? (BTW, I know of no
biblical
>writer who claims that he, or the Bible, is without error). Brown cites a
>statement by the Pontifical Bible Commission that "the books of scripture
>must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error the
>truth with God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our
>salvation." In other words, "everything in scripture is inerrant to the
>extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God."
>
>Brown concludes by stating "the fact that the word of the Bible is time
>conditioned and human makes it no less ‘of Godà ". He argues that just as
>Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so is God‘s written word. A believer
>in revelation and inspiration can nonetheless hold that the inspired
>Scripture is human, time-conditioned, and subject to error, precisely
>because the Bible is the "human word of God ¦ just as "the word of the
>eternal Father having taken the himself the weak flesh of humanity, became
>like other human beings."
>
>FURTHER READING
>
>Raymond Brown, ¦Critical Meaning of the Bible"
>Raymond Brown, ¦Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine"
>J.L. McKenzie, ¦The Old Testament Without Illusion"
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Win a first-class trip to New Orleans and vacation Elvis Style!.
Enter NOW!
http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 23:30:39 EDT