Subject: Re: Job (was Re: Dinosaurs and Job)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:37:14 GMT
From:  
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

In article <80al0 ,  (Andrew Bromage) wrote:
> G’day all.
[snip]
> I’d like to start a discussion of Job, being a keen student of
> suffering.  First off, though, I’d like to take a high-level look at
> the structure, since there are a few questions about how well it has
> been transmitted.

[snip]
G’day Andrew,
As it happens, I have just started on trying to understand 
the Wisdom Literature (Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes) a 
little better. When I did Old Testament “B” at 
Bible college, the individual colleges had a choice on 
what books they would teach. The fact that my college 
omitted Job and instead taught Daniel (!) and Ezekiel (!!) 
says something about the difficulty of Job IMHO...

To this end I have purchased Graeme Goldworthy’s 
“Gospel and Wisdom” for all of $5 after it was 
recommended by someone in the “Best Books” 
thread. Rather more wordy than his classic “Gospel 
and Kingdom”, but it’s still been worthwhile. 
I’ve also tried to glean what I can from other 
commentary-type books in my modest library.

On the question of historicity: I’ve recently come 
around to the position that it is not intended to be 
historical. The fact that all the speeches are in poetry 
- unlike in real life - is surely a major clue.

In answer to your questions about the text: the possible 
cutting of a 3rd speech by Zophar, and the possible 
later insertion of Elihu’s material: we really 
don’t know, nor do I much care. Commentators seem 
to think Zophar is the least sympathetic, most 
“black-and-white” of Job’s counsellors. 
Perhaps he had nothing useful left to say?  And whether 
or not Elihu is an addition, he seems to get a bit 
closer to God’s perspective, and so is perhaps a 
“bridge” to God’s speech immediately after.

In other words, the book is good as it stands, whatever 
its history of composition.

There seem to be 2 main ideas on what Job is all about. 
Most see it as primarily about the problem of suffering. 
One problem with that is not really answered by God. 
Goldsworthy’s suggestion (which I believe I once 
also read in a book by Larry Crabb) is that the prime 
concern is not suffering but faith. The background of 
suffering is used to probe the question: how do we 
react when our experience does not match the neat little 
theologies we have made for ourselves? Job’s 
counsellors, taking the traditions in the Book of 
Proverbs and turning them into hard-and-fast rules, 
deduce that Job’s suffering MUST be as a result of 
his sin, because that’s what their theology tells 
them. Job, perhaps agreeing with their answers in 
principle, is adamant he has not brought the calamity 
upon himself. In hearing God’s answer, Job is made 
to realise that he cannot understand everything, so 
there will be times that his experience does not match 
his theology so he just has to trust God.

I think Goldsworthy’s explanation (which I hope I 
have done justice to) makes a lot of sense.

Regards,

Peter Ballard
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
 OR  
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/ [personal opinions only]