Comments on: Two Major WTFs (Job 22) http://anadder.com/two-major-wtfs Wed, 23 May 2012 09:26:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: michael http://anadder.com/two-major-wtfs/comment-page-1#comment-16837 michael Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:01:40 +0000 http://anadder.com/?p=1611#comment-16837 By young, do you mean late? If then, sorry, I forgot that Job was <a href="http://www.dafyomi.co.il/bbasra/points/bb-ps-015.htm" rel="nofollow">written by Moses</a>, I recant! But in reality, who argues that it's an early book and why? It isn't the authors who are straining to find false wickedness in Job but Job's friends. The authors' intentions are a bit more complex than that (although they're extremely hard to ascertain for this book). Same for the visions of God behind the literal clouds which belong to Job's friend. I sincerely apologise for the ad hominem in which I dismissed your arguments because you're a religious fundamentalist (as per your comment) -- but it is the internet after all so I have to... By young, do you mean late? If then, sorry, I forgot that Job was written by Moses, I recant! But in reality, who argues that it’s an early book and why?

It isn’t the authors who are straining to find false wickedness in Job but Job’s friends. The authors’ intentions are a bit more complex than that (although they’re extremely hard to ascertain for this book).

Same for the visions of God behind the literal clouds which belong to Job’s friend.

I sincerely apologise for the ad hominem in which I dismissed your arguments because you’re a religious fundamentalist (as per your comment) — but it is the internet after all so I have to…

]]> By: Helena Constantine http://anadder.com/two-major-wtfs/comment-page-1#comment-16552 Helena Constantine Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:46:01 +0000 http://anadder.com/?p=1611#comment-16552 1. What makes you think Job is young? Many people think parts of it at least go back to pre-monotheistic periods (though admittedly that wouldn't be that old--pre-Josiah perhaps?) 2.As you point out the first passage is related to stock criticisms of the land-owning classes and are typical of the prophetic movements (as well as of the Jesus movement later). I don't think it contradicts the image of Job in the first chapter. The first chapter represents the self-unerstaninding of the aristocratic class, this passage shows the understanding of peasants. I don't thin its a contradiciton, but the author wishes his audience to consider each view for himself. Its a very simple-minded way of looking at the text to say the author is looking for reasons for why god is punishing Job and settles on ascribing a putative and perhaps false wickedness to him. Apart from anything else we know that within the narrative context of the story that is not why Job is being punished. The argument in that passage is clearly an explanation of human wickedness that does not involve theodicy. 3. It strains credulity that you think the author wants this business about god seeing through the clouds to be taken literally. This is the Epicurean objection to religion: If god exists what is the sue, he obviously doesn't care about what goes on down here anyway (and today its increasing clear that Greek and Semitic culture are expressions of a common Eastern Medditerranean culture, so expressing it in the way I have is not tendentious). And before you start acting like Dwayne Gish and start dismissing my comments as invalid because I'm a religious fundamentalist, let me tell you that I am a Classicist, a specialists in Neoplatonism and Patristics, (though trained largely in NT), and in profdessional matters such as these a strict methodlogical Atheist (though I would gladly worship Zeus and Apollo if it were intelelctually possible). But, this being the internet, probably you will find some other reason to dismiss my comments. 1. What makes you think Job is young? Many people think parts of it at least go back to pre-monotheistic periods (though admittedly that wouldn’t be that old–pre-Josiah perhaps?)

2.As you point out the first passage is related to stock criticisms of the land-owning classes and are typical of the prophetic movements (as well as of the Jesus movement later). I don’t think it contradicts the image of Job in the first chapter. The first chapter represents the self-unerstaninding of the aristocratic class, this passage shows the understanding of peasants. I don’t thin its a contradiciton, but the author wishes his audience to consider each view for himself. Its a very simple-minded way of looking at the text to say the author is looking for reasons for why god is punishing Job and settles on ascribing a putative and perhaps false wickedness to him. Apart from anything else we know that within the narrative context of the story that is not why Job is being punished. The argument in that passage is clearly an explanation of human wickedness that does not involve theodicy.

3. It strains credulity that you think the author wants this business about god seeing through the clouds to be taken literally. This is the Epicurean objection to religion: If god exists what is the sue, he obviously doesn’t care about what goes on down here anyway (and today its increasing clear that Greek and Semitic culture are expressions of a common Eastern Medditerranean culture, so expressing it in the way I have is not tendentious).

And before you start acting like Dwayne Gish and start dismissing my comments as invalid because I’m a religious fundamentalist, let me tell you that I am a Classicist, a specialists in Neoplatonism and Patristics, (though trained largely in NT), and in profdessional matters such as these a strict methodlogical Atheist (though I would gladly worship Zeus and Apollo if it were intelelctually possible). But, this being the internet, probably you will find some other reason to dismiss my comments.

]]>