Re: [asa] On Job

*So my original question was then: If we establish that their perception of
Job
was in an historical sense, do we ignore that?*
**
No, I don't think we can ignore an Apostolic reference to an OT character in
an apparently historical sense a canonical text. OTOH, I don't think it
necessarily settles the matter either. As you noted, we have to determine
in what sense the later writer is referring to the earlier event. We also
have to determine whether the later writer seems to be making a clear
affirmation about the historicity of the earlier event -- and we have to do
that by understanding even the later writer's cultural and hermeneutical
conventions about historicity.

Maybe we can read James to be commenting on Job without any intention to
communicate anything authoritative about whether Job was a real person.
Perhaps James' reference to Job in a seemingly historical sense is an
example of accomodation. But at the very least, it's not by any stretch a
simple question, and folks who argue for the historicity of Job aren't just
off having tea with the Mad Hatter.

On 10/4/06, mrb22667@kansas.net <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> 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 18:42:53 2006