| So whatever. It just seems to me that Arachnophilia and Dr. Adequate approach Isaiah (and the bible as a whole) from the position of biblical minimalism -- or at the very least, Reform Judaism. |
perhaps. my views on the bible are quite complicated, and informed (at least in part) by jewish sources of various denominations, including secular.
| (I'm not sure what the Hebrew word in Arachnophilia's sig is, but I'd make an educated guess that he's Jewish.) |
i am not, but i probably should have been. it was, after all, jewish stories from the old testament that prompted me to convert to christianity. the word in my signature is a name from the bible, "arach". not pronounced the same way, but, hey.
| I'm more of a questioner, weighing things and trying to come up with the most reasonable conclusion that doesn't destroy the intent of the text. I think it's unlikely that we'll see eye to eye on much. *shrugs* |
i think you will be surprised. i do not approach the bible from any particular standpoint, although i do try to understand the intent, purpose, and function of each text individually. for some texts, such as the torah, dissecting the text into individual sources goes a long way towards explaining things, and often allows for a story to be examined independently of outside influences it must be rectified against. see for instance the discussion on genesis 1 v. genesis 2: it's quite handy to understand that they are different, and have different goals. mashing them together detracts from their independent meanings. call that "minimalism" if you like.
for instance, regarding job, above,
| The rest regarding Job and Jeremiah, I'd rather not continue. It seems like we see things way too differently here, so we likely won't get anywhere. (And yes, I'm aware that Job was not an Israelite, but I don't think the book of Job was written at such a late date.) |
job has two primary sources, and they differ in age. there is also likely a secondary source, an oral legend. he's mentioned in genesis and ezekiel, though not much said except that he is righteous.
the standard christian rhetoric is that the book of job is very, very old, based on the assumption that it was written by job, when it actually happened. instead, it is far more useful to look at its date of canonization, and realize that it was one of the last books added to the tanakh, or group it with the rest of old testament scripture at the earliest. this puts it firmly in a context of babylonian captivity. that, plus basic stylistic analysis, will tell you that it's basically an extensive philosophical argument against the prevailing wisdom movement of the day. job's friends basically argue the position of the wisdom movement: god punishes the wicked and rewards the just -- thus it's possible to infer the moral quality of a person based on his status in life.
this logic, of course, was used in first (and second) temple judaism to exclude those that truly needed help (cf; jesus and the lepers), and to justify the wealth of the levitical priests. it was also used by prophets like jeremiah to conclude that judah must be wicked and following false gods, or god would not have abandoned them. that's the fundamental logical assumption of the major prophets, who like job's friends also number three, and job effectively argues against them.
i don't think it's possible to understand the book of job without contrasting it to the major prophets. further, i think that contrast specifically demonstrates what you were going for above -- the difference between the "evil" of isaiah 45:7, and actual injustice carried out by god.
i think it's also important to understand the bible from a jewish perspective in regards to fighting with god. "israel" was so named for his struggle with god, and the best leaders of the hebrew people have been willing to question and challenge god. consider abraham's challenge to god regarding sodom:
quote:
That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?'
the word used here, repeatedly, is chalilah, the same word you use for desecration, and for a person who is never allowed to become a rabbi. it's basically the hebrew word for heresy. abraham charges god with considering heresy.
and god agrees.
Regarding Job 3:25:| err, no. that's what the satan charges. |
Umm...but this is a direct statement by Job himself? |
yes, but i think it's insufficient to demonstrate that job was only following god out of fear.
אָרַח
™ Version 4.1
