Re: [asa] On Job

I think this raises a good question: Are we obligated (as faithful readers of
scripture) to view passages the same way NT writers treated them? The Ezekiel
passage where God speaks of Job could be explained easily enough: Even
non-historical figures take their place in the common historical vocabulary of a
culture. Somebody today might say: "The good samaritan would have done ..."
or "Even Hercules couldn't have ... " knowing full-well that these never
existed. But they are still useful in making a point.

The James passage is a little trickier because Job is held up as an example of
God's eventual compassion. The writer most probably deems Job to be historical.

So my original question was then: If we establish that their perception of Job
was in an historical sense, do we ignore that?

We do have a precedent for dismissing any latent cosmologies since we have
scientific info. they didn't. Nobody (not even YECs I wouldn't think) would
defend the stars falling from the sky in Revelation as being literal. But many
from that time probably did. Do we have similar license in a literary sense to
see earlier scriptures differently than inspired NT writers did? (Or even
stickier yet do we have license to view cosmology differently than Jesus himself
did since he also refers to Isaiah's prophecy of stars falling from the sky in
Mark 13:25) Those who try (I don't) to maintain the omniscience of Jesus on
these things (even allowing for the exception of not knowing the day or hour)
have thorny issues at hand.

--merv

Quoting David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>:

> OTOH, Ezekiel 14:20 and James 5:11 seem to suggest Job was a real person, as
> does Job 42:16 which gives his age, so calling the whole story "ALICE IN
> WONDERLAND" seems to raise all sorts of thorny questions about inspiration,
> scriptural authority, and the objective reality of the faith. "Literal"
> history might be the wrong genre, but mere "allegory" seems only to make
> things curioser and curioser, as Alice might say.
>
> On 10/4/06, Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > As I often tell my NT students, if you confine truth to what "actually
> > happened in history," you miss most of the truths of the Bible.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> > To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] On Job
> >
> >
> > > Absolutely , there is no historicity in Job, but it is still the best
> > > thing in the OT on suffering
> > >
> > > Michael
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
> > > To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:37 PM
> > > Subject: [asa] On Job
> > >
> > >
> > >> Vernon commented: "Can such passages as Job 1:6-12 =
> > >> and 2:1-7 be 'interpreted' to mean something different from their =
> > >> account of actual meetings, actual discussions and actual consequences?
> > >> =
> > >> And if, in your view they must be accepted as real events, what might
> > we
> > >> =
> > >> usefully glean from them?"
> > >>
> > >> The most reasonable interpretation of Job is that it is a morality
> > play.
> > >> To consider it as sober factual history is ludicrous. Sort of like
> > >> believing ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
> > >>
> > >> Burgy
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 4 17:38:24 2006