The Book of Job discussion

[axordil]

Blake's theology was similar to Ptolemy's, in that he believed God had revealed himself in stages, as it were, progressively less brutal and violent as his people became so...or perhaps as his people demanded it, the causality isn't clear. That's what you get for being a visionary.

What Job's friends go through is a form of cognitive dissonance. They are his close friends. They know his life is blameless. Yet his suffering is of a magnitude that they can only explain as divine punishment, so he must NOT be blameless.

[yovargas]

Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold on to your faith? Curse God and die!”

Forgive the short, flippant commentary but I just had to say - YEESH, what an unhelpful wife!!!!!

[vison]

Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold on to your faith? Curse God and die!”

Forgive the short, flippant commentary but I just had to say - YEESH, what an unhelpful wife!!!!!

A realist, Mrs. Job.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold on to your faith? Curse God and die!”

Forgive the short, flippant commentary but I just had to say - YEESH, what an unhelpful wife!!!!!

If you are only getting your impression from the short summary posted by Sir D, your short, flippant commentary isn't all that inappropriate. Even reading the standard English translations doesn't really do the text justice.

[yovargas]

A realist, Mrs. Job.

Don't really see how cursing god and killing himself would've improved the situation any.

[vison]

A realist, Mrs. Job.

Don't really see how cursing god and killing himself would've improved the situation any.

She was probably tired of him mooching about, suffering?

I should really, really, really stay out of this thread. I will wind up in trouble, sure as . . . heck.

[JewelSong]

I think succinct (and humorous) comments like the ones above are perfect in a discussion of Job. Job's wife (to me) is the best, most realistic character in the entire story.

Don't really see how cursing god and killing himself would've improved the situation any

Now, see, I don't think she meant for Job to kill himself. I think that somehow, she knew the only reason he HADN'T died is that God had made The Adversary promise not to kill him as long as Job stayed steadfast to God. If Job cursed God, presumably all bets would be off and Job would then die/be killed - as he probably should have done in normal circumstances.

About the 7 days without speaking - the number 7 is often used in the Bible. I *think* the Jewish tradition of mourning (sitting shivah?) is 7 days long, as well.

And didn't Merry and Pippin stand silently by Sam's side at the Havens for 7 days?

ETA: vison, don't leave the thread! The Book of Job is such a great, many-layered story that I think your comments and participation would add much. You don't have to consider it as a true story, a factual story or anything of the sort. It's an old story - very old - and as such, may have something to say about the human condition and how we cope when bad things happen to good people.

[SirDennis]

What Job's friends go through is a form of cognitive dissonance. They are his close friends. They know his life is blameless. Yet his suffering is of a magnitude that they can only explain as divine punishment, so he must NOT be blameless.

Ax way to skip ahead through the meat of his friend's arguments -- you may have saved us a month of discussion!

(dashing off but shall return)

Should have just stop reading there... but first, okay:

A realist, Mrs. Job.

Don't really see how cursing god and killing himself would've improved the situation any.

My take on the verse is it was thought that cursing God that would lead to death, not that he would kill himself directly.

(sorry no time just now)

[Dave_LF]

And I always thought she just meant it was clear he was about to die anyway, and he might as well let God know what he thinks about that first.

[River]

And I always thought she just meant it was clear he was about to die anyway, and he might as well let God know what he thinks about that first.

Or that he had a choice: sit in the ashes and pick at himself or get up and get on with things.

Oddly, I'm reading this as more of a test of God's faith in Job than the other way around.

[JewelSong]

Oddly, I'm reading this as more of a test of God's faith in Job than the other way around.

I like that!



I'm liking this discussion very much! It's so...organic.

[axordil]

Oddly, I'm reading this as more of a test of God's faith in Job than the other way around.

The framing story does that. Without it, Job is a vastly different book.

[vison]

I have always loved this story. But I cannot pretend that I think it is anything but a story.

An excellent story that tells us a great deal about life in Job's time, and the way people thought, and how human suffering in the face of an uncaring universe is, well, universal. And how bad things happen to good people. And how everyone tries to figure out why that is.

Job could wear my slogan on a t-shirt: Shit Happens.

I will put asterisks in there if anyone is offended.

[Frelga]

And we'll never guess what you meant.

I might pop back in, in a couple weeks when dust settles IRL. Just thought I stop by and let SirD know that I am enjoying the discussion even if I don't have time to post.

[SirDennis]

And I always thought she just meant it was clear he was about to die anyway, and he might as well let God know what he thinks about that first.

Or that he had a choice: sit in the ashes and pick at himself or get up and get on with things.

Oddly, I'm reading this as more of a test of God's faith in Job than the other way around.

River:
That is an interesting take on the story.

Job's friends (well one of them at least) basically eventually tell him something similar to your first line: accept that you messed up (because clearly you must have), apologize, and get on with your life.

In an unexpected (and often overlooked) twist, it was adopting that attitude with Job that causes God to be angry with Job's friends (as we shall see eventually).

Dave:

It's probably just me but that would be pretty bad advice on her part. "Since you're as good as dead, go for the shallowest of victories." Isn't there a Rock and Roll version of the story where it goes down like that, with Job yelling FTW as he vanishes into the abyss?

If you are only getting your impression from the short summary posted by Sir D, your short, flippant commentary isn't all that inappropriate. Even reading the standard English translations doesn't really do the text justice.

Voronwë:

I'm finding the NLT a little flat as well. As I said at the outset I hadn't read it before; if nothing else, it is proving fairly easy to understand. We can switch to another version if people would like to. I hope people have been reading the verses as we go, in the NLT or their preferred version (the links I've provided allow a person to search several many versions online). If you would like, I will add the following links to each section: Job in the Hebrew-English Bible and Job, Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB). It would be interesting (to me) to bring in verses from either of those translations.

For instance, here is how the OJB renders verse 9: "Then said his isha unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse Elohim, and die." (Elohim means God the Creator or Almighty God if I'm not mistaken.)

If you are simply saying that English is not up to the task of capturing the beauty of the original scriptures, I concur though I lack ability to read in any other languages but English and French (perhaps a little Spanish and some rudimentary sense of Italian).

As for my summaries so far, I hope I'm not missing too many subtleties or overt points even. (Though in this last instalment, my summary was the verses themselves!) I've been saving more substantial reflections for when I wrap up each section, desiring to get everyone else's impression of the text before doing so. The thing I'm least happy with so far, is the questions I've managed to come up with.

I was thinking of saving this for the end of our discussion but this seems as good a time as then (if there's a then). While doing a little light reading on Job in Judaism, I found this quote to be particularly relevant and compelling:

"The whole book is one uninterrupted contest between the 'cries' of the much-afflicted Job and the 'reflections' of his rational friends. The friends, as true thinkers, look not at Job but at the 'general.' Job, however, does not wish to hear about the 'general'; he knows that the general is deaf and dumb - and that it is impossible to speak with it. 'But I would speak to the Almighty, and I desire to argue my case with God' (13:3). The friends are horrified at Job's words: they are convinced that it is not possible to speak with God and that the Almighty is concerned about the firmness of his power and the unchangeability of his laws but not about the fate of the people created by him. Perhaps they are convinced that in general God does not know any concerns but that he only rules. That is why they answer, 'You who tear yourself in your anger, shall the earth be forsaken for you or the rock be removed from its place?' (18:4). And, indeed, shall rocks really be removed from their place for the sake of Job? And shall necessity renounce its sacred rights? This would truly be the summit of human audacity, this would truly be a 'mutiny,' a 'revolt' of the single human personality against the eternal laws of the all-unity of being!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#In_Judaism

Finally, Vison:

yes it does indeed happen. And sometimes it hits the fan before it happens. Nasty stuff that.

In general:

Just wondering if we have reached a consensus on what Job's wife meant? I think Jewel's explanation is what we are supposed to get from her words: She implies that Job will die if he curses God, and in his case, it might be worth giving up whatever he thinks he might gain (or still has) by not doing so.

Some other things worth mentioning:

In Chapter 1, once Job (through worship) proves God right, or the Adversary wrong (depending), the first test is concluded.

By the end of Chapter 2, the second test is not yet ended -- at least we are not told it is ended. My impression, looking ahead, is it is not over until God steps in near the end of the book.

In other words, the Accuser may still be engaged in testing Job not only through his physical affliction, but also through his religious friends and perhaps his wife (though we do not hear from her again as far as I remember). As well, the effects of the first test are wrapped up in the overall impact of the second test.

ps Thanks Frelga. RL caught me off guard this week as well. Too many things going on to even mention. (I hope whatever is keeping you occupied is worth the effort!) Your insights will be missed.

ETA: Thinking about the blurb under "In general" a little more (perhaps influenced by Dave LF's comment somewhat) a question appears:

Do you think that Job's wife thought he might gain (or achieve) something, apart from death, if he cursed God?

[Frelga]

1There was an ish in Eretz Uz, shmo Iyov; and that ish was blameless and yashar, and yire Elohim, and shunned evil.

Otherwise known as the “why bother translating” translation. There are probably good reasons day why they left half the words in Hebrew, but it's not very helpful to an English speaker.

Couple points, though. The Hebrew text refers to HaSatan - THE Satan, implying job description rather than name. Also, like other Jewish versions of translations, it says that the accuser came among children of God, rather than with them.

[SirDennis]

1There was an ish in Eretz Uz, shmo Iyov; and that ish was blameless and yashar, and yire Elohim, and shunned evil.

Otherwise known as the “why bother translating” translation. There are probably good reasons day why they left half the words in Hebrew, but it's not very helpful to an English speaker.

Couple points, though. The Hebrew text refers to HaSatan - THE Satan, implying job description rather than name. Also, like other Jewish versions of translations, it says that the accuser came among children of God, rather than with them.

So then the Hebrew-English Translation (1917?) is preferred? I have a Hebrew Bible but alas it is with the greater part of my library in storage.

I'm getting the impression from the many names of God (I like El Roi, the God who sees me), and the various names for the Enemy, that much is implied about their nature by the way they are called.

Your point about coming among, rather than with, the Children of God* is well taken. When God notices him, as if it was unusual for him to be there, he asks "where did you come from?" to which he replies, "from roaming about the Earth." If that was his usual domain (and I think it is) it becomes clearer why Job would need a hedge [of protection].

* didn't want to interrupt the flow of that thought. Frelga are the Children of God also called Angels in Judaism?

[JewelSong]

Do you think that Job's wife thought he might gain (or achieve) something, apart from death, if he cursed God?

I don't. I think she was simply sick of the whole thing and wanted it to be over, already.

Also, is it not ironic that Job refused to blame God for all his troubles, when it was in fact, God who was responsible? DId Job ever twig to the fact that he was merely a pawn in some stupid bet God had going on with the Devil?

Reminds me a bit of Mitt Romney's casual $10,000 bet...as if $10,000 was nothing.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Couple points, though. The Hebrew text refers to HaSatan - THE Satan, implying job description rather than name. Also, like other Jewish versions of translations, it says that the accuser came among children of God, rather than with them.

Without meaning to be "unnecessary" (SirDennins), my understanding of "Satan" is that it was a specific role, from which opposing argument to a proposition was put; hence "Devil's Advocate" in modern parlance.

[axordil]

One could extract a larger existential message from Job's wife's utterance: what's the point of living a life of faith when there are clearly no promises to be had that you get anything out of it? This touches on the deepest orthodox (small O) meaning of Job, which is less about defending God than defending the point of righteous living. God, as God points out, is not subject to human judgment--but God's rules for humans ARE, because they're down here applying to us, not dancing around the ineffable up there in the realms of gold.