Book of Job

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I just read a book entitled "The Book of Job as a Greek Tragedy," which was, as you might guess, an argument that the Book of Job was essentially a Greek tragedy, in the Euripidean tragedy of heterodox content sandwiched between an orthodox prologue and epilogue. Two interesting essays on "the Joban philosophy of life," the intersecting of Hebrew and Hellenistic thought, and, of course, a reconstruction of the proposed original form. Really interesting stuff, and a lot of good points; although I think there are a couple of major flaws in the argument, I think there is a lot of truth to it.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I just read a book entitled "The Book of Job as a Greek Tragedy," which was, as you might guess, an argument that the Book of Job was essentially a Greek tragedy, in the Euripidean tragedy of heterodox content sandwiched between an orthodox prologue and epilogue. Two interesting essays on "the Joban philosophy of life," the intersecting of Hebrew and Hellenistic thought, and, of course, a reconstruction of the proposed original form. Really interesting stuff, and a lot of good points; although I think there are a couple of major flaws in the argument, I think there is a lot of truth to it.

That's interesting - because most of what I've heard about Job is that it is the oldest book in the Bible, as far as when it was written. That would make it pre-date Greek civilization substantially. I have heard that there is an ancient form of the story that is... I'm not sure, Babylonian?

Unless maybe the Greeks later copied the Joban form?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Valandil

That's interesting - because most of what I've heard about Job is that it is the oldest book in the Bible, as far as when it was written. That would make it pre-date Greek civilization substantially. I have heard that there is an ancient form of the story that is... I'm not sure, Babylonian?

Unless maybe the Greeks later copied the Joban form?

From everything I've heard, OT scholars are pretty universally agreed that it is from the period after the exile, which would certainly put the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic histories (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings), many of the Psalms, the Song of Songs, much of Proverbs, and a number of the prophets before it.

Originally Posted by GM

By "essentially" do you mean the author argues that it was directly influenced by Euripides, or just followed the same pattern?

Directly influenced. Intriguing hypothesis.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Directly influenced. Intriguing hypothesis.

Indeed- I'd like to read it.

So does the author think the Elihu verses were an interpolation to defend Hebrew beliefs against Greek tragic influences?


And, tying into Valandil's choice of the NIV, I assume he goes with the "I have no hope" translation of 13:15 rather than the "yet will I trust in him."

[GrayMouser]

Just looked it up in Google- written in 1918! (available online)

I assumed it was some just-released radical new theory. Goes to show what they say about "assume" is true.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Indeed- I'd like to read it.

So does the author think the Elihu verses were an interpolation to defend Hebrew beliefs against Greek tragic influences?


And, tying into Valandil's choice of the NIV, I assume he goes with the "I have no hope" translation of 13:15 rather than the "yet will I trust in him."

No; he tends to think that Elihu was mostly part of the original work, with some tweaking. He gives the role of defending orthodoxy to the prologue and the epilogue. But the ranting against God is certainly not seen as a Greek influence, but as inherent to Hebrew relationship with God.

He mostly uses an existing translation, though which one I don't recall. Whichever one it is, they opted for "I have no hope."

I knew it was old, but I didn't realize THAT old! The copy I read was from 1959. In all honesty, I have no idea what scholars are saying these days. But since I was interested in Job as one of the more challenging books of the Bible, and since I was interested in Greek tragedy, when I saw the title I knew what I was going to be reading over the break.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

:
:
And, tying into Valandil's choice of the NIV, I assume he goes with the "I have no hope" translation of 13:15 rather than the "yet will I trust in him."

Well - I don't know Hebrew and don't have access to ancient manuscripts, nor would I know what to do with them if I did, nor am I a smart enough theologian to have an informed opinion on it.

But my NIV clearly says 'yet will I trust in him' in 13:15 - so if I stick with my translation - I'd say no.

Sounds like somewhat of a difference though - what version have you seen the first in? Perhaps the variances are in different manuscripts?? Though sometimes translating particular words from one language to another can point a translator into two potentially widely different directions, as I understand it. Such is the nature of language and translation.

[inked]

Valandil,

You needn't be a Hebrew scholar right off the bat! But, should you be interested, here is an excellent resource for checking out stuff like this. It is the Blue Letter Bible.

Here's the reference under question: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...&v=1&t=KJV#top

Note that the resource will give it to you in 13 translations including Hebrew, Septuaguint, the Vulgate and a variety of English translations - which are interesting for comparative purposes and which vary in the specific translation under question.

You also have access to the specific Hebrew and Greek words employed, lexicons, dictionaries and commentaries.

Enjoy!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Well - I don't know Hebrew and don't have access to ancient manuscripts, nor would I know what to do with them if I did, nor am I a smart enough theologian to have an informed opinion on it.

But my NIV clearly says 'yet will I trust in him' in 13:15 - so if I stick with my translation - I'd say no.

Sounds like somewhat of a difference though - what version have you seen the first in? Perhaps the variances are in different manuscripts?? Though sometimes translating particular words from one language to another can point a translator into two potentially widely different directions, as I understand it. Such is the nature of language and translation.

As I'm sure you know, there are a number of factors contributing to variant readings of Hebrew text, in particular, but also of Greek. It is my understanding that in addition to these general difficulties, the Hebrew text we have of Job is a mess, so that there are a number of places where the great majority of scholars end up having to throw their hands up in the air and say, "I have no idea!" I think it's probably either the murky nature of the text, or else the general problematic of translation that produces these variants readings, rather than alternate manuscripts. Of course, my main basis for this assertion is the fact that footnotes seem to say, "Or" rather than "Some manuscripts read", so I could easily be wrong.

Personally, I think "I have no hope" makes more sense with the following "But/Nevertheless I will argue my case with him." The "but" implies a certain discontinuity between the two thoughts, and I think "I have no hope" is more dissonant with "I will argue my case" than is "I will hope in him." It also seems more in character with Job's speeches in general.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I just read a book entitled "The Book of Job as a Greek Tragedy," which was, as you might guess, an argument that the Book of Job was essentially a Greek tragedy, in the Euripidean tragedy of heterodox content sandwiched between an orthodox prologue and epilogue. Two interesting essays on "the Joban philosophy of life," the intersecting of Hebrew and Hellenistic thought, and, of course, a reconstruction of the proposed original form. Really interesting stuff, and a lot of good points; although I think there are a couple of major flaws in the argument, I think there is a lot of truth to it.

By "essentially" do you mean the author argues that it was directly influenced by Euripides, or just followed the same pattern?

[Comic Book Guy]

Nothing shocking, most biblical myths are downright plagiarised from even older mythologies.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

Nothing shocking, most biblical myths are downright plagiarised from even older mythologies.

I was taught by a Catholic theology professor that many biblical myths were converted from older traditions to make the transition easier for pagan converts. One thing I find problematic is when people attempt to view the old testament as being literal when, in many cases, it's probably (in fact mostly) meant to be allegorical.

[Valandil]

But different theologians and scholars come to different conclusions on those things - which is why some of us see things differently, I suppose.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

Nothing shocking, most biblical myths are downright plagiarised from even older mythologies.

First, to describe the process as plagiarism is a raging anachronism. The concept of plagiarism implies copyright implies intellectual property implies, I would be willing to guess, the rise of the middle classes. Absolutely none of which have any bearing whatsoever on the Ancient Near East. There was no intellectual copyright. People very often attributed their works to more famous people in order to get people to read them. There was no jealous concern of "my idea."

As regards religious cross-pollination, it is hardly peculiar to the Bible. Pretty much whenever you had different religions in close proximity, concepts, practices, or gods from one tended to drift to another. Thus, for instance, Egyptian gods like Thoth and Isis were worshipped in Greece, the famed Greek God Adonis was actually Semitic and based on the Babylonian Tammuz, and of course the Romans transplanted the Greek pantheon wholesale. "Downright plagiarised" is hardly an accurate description of this process which is quite natural. Indeed, if there anything unusual in the Israelites, it is the way they resisted this cross-pollination with other religions, and tended to take strong stances against the importation of foreign deities.

I was taught by a Catholic theology professor that many biblical myths were converted from older traditions to make the transition easier for pagan converts.

Well, that's not really quite accurate. I think your prof. may have been thinking of later developments with Christianity, when the Christians adopted the trappings of their surrounding religious cultures to ease conversion (thus, Christmas falls on the birthday of the Roman god Sol Invictus, and so on).

But the Bible, or at least the Old Testament, was constructed by Hebrews and Jews, and their religion at the time was thought of more in terms of genealogical connection with founding figures; consequently, they were not, by any means, a conversion-oriented religion. You were (and, indeed, still are) born a Jew, and conversion was pretty rare, though not unheard of. Conversion was not a big enough issue for them to go out of their ways to accommodate it.

One thing I find problematic is when people attempt to view the old testament as being literal when, in many cases, it's probably (in fact mostly) meant to be allegorical.

I think it's difficult to make a blanket statement that most of the OT is meant to be allegorical (if I understand you correctly?) Many books are not meant to be taken as a description of literal events, certainly (such as Daniel and Job), but there is a strong historical tradition in the OT. Certainly, Joshua and Judges are both meant to be histories of the taking of the Holy Land, and the books of Samuel and Kings are meant to be histories of the monarchy of Israel (in the case of Kings, at least, a pretty accurate history as far as we can tell from other sources). Chronicles are, of course, a re-formulation of material from Samuel and Kings, and are likewise meant to be historical. There is certainly a strongly historical element to the prophets, because they were written to respond to specific situations, and historical information may be gleaned from many of them, something exaggerated, but sometimes quite accurate.

That said, the question is raised of what "history" was back then, and it certainly wasn't the same thing as it is now. Histories were ideologically driven. The ideology behind Kings, for instance, is to show how Israel repeatedly failed to keep the covenant. Thus, many kings, even ones with long reigns and who were very significant leaders are dismissed with a repetition of "And Omri did evil in the land, and worshipped false gods, and went to rest with his fathers" (or something like that ). There simply was no concept of history as objective, verifiable, or "scientific" back then.

Which is a very long way of saying: there isn't a strong divide in antiquity between historical and non-historical. Certainly, though, both historical elements and non-historical elements are more prevalent in Scripture than many people think.

[GrayMouser]

Speaking of tragedy, just finished A D Nuttal's "Why Does Tragedy Give Pleasure?"

Very good, very short!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What's his answer?

[GrayMouser]

Basically he leans toward Aristotle's catharsis for the audience, with heavy emphasis on the purgative sense of the word, flavoured with our post-Romantic view that the emotions are good:

"...at the level of initial arousal even terror is fun, as everyone who has been on a fairground ride knows perfectly well. Can we not, in the face of this obvious truth, cut short our grand theorising and say simply, 'Pity and fear are fun'?"

It's mostly a quick tour from Aristotle to Sydney to Freud to Nietszche and his inheritors, with a final chapter on King Lear. (It was originally written for the Northcliffe Lectures on Literature )

In the section on Freud he (approvingly) quotes a couple of good smackdowns from C.S. Lewis.

My favorite section was on Nietszche and the modern proponents of the "Dionysian" theory of Greek tragedy as sacred performance. After laying out their ideas he comes out with the pointed comment that Aristotle, who after all went to the plays, didn't seem to regard them as particularly religious.

As well, he (gently) mocks the assumption of those swept up by the Dark Side of the Apollo/Dionysus split that, "while anyone can see Gibbon's Romans are lightly-disguised 18th-century gentlemen, and Tennyson's Medievals are Victorian bourgeoisie, Nietszche's Greeks are real Greeks."

That brought blushes to my cheeks with 35-year-old memories of my own nietszchean infatuation.

Very good style too- he can deal with all the intricacies of modern Theory
without being swept up in it. I'd like to read some of his other stuff.

From the (London) Times obit:

Among the books and articles he produced there were A Common Sky (1974), which explored the relations between literature and doubt about the external world in Locke, Hume, Sterne, Wordsworth, Sartre and others; a study of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment (1978), which presented murder as a philosophical experiment; Overheard by God (1980), which asked how far God may be the subject of literature, and A New Mimesis (1983), which trenchantly defended the study of literature as the representation of reality, again with special reference to Shakespeare and the complexity and depth of Shakespeare’s understanding of character and history, written against formalism, but attempting to make use of the insights of structuralism.

All his adult life he moved in a vast agnostic ellipse having Christianity and atheism as its foci, whose effects may be seen in Two Concepts of Allegory, which is haunted by the doctrine of the Incarnation, in Overheard by God, and in his last book from Sussex, a study of Pope’s Essay on Man(1984) in which, in company with Dr Johnson, he condemned 18th-century theodicy.

At Oxford his writing was more strictly literary, as in Openings(1992), which is actually about the openings of works of literature, and Why Does Tragedy give Pleasure? (1998). His wider scope reappeared in The Alternative Trinity (1998), which is partly about the relations between God the Father and God the Son from Marlowe to Blake, and partly about the morality of acquiring knowledge. From the latter theme he went back to the problems of his career before he ever began to write, in Dead From the Waist Down (2003), a study of the psychology and ideals of scholarship in literature and reality (George Eliot’s Casaubon, the historic Isaac Casaubon, Mark Pattison and A. E. Housman), dedicated “To Oxford”.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sounds intriguing...I'll have to give a look. I'm especially eager to see the Lear connection.

[Comic Book Guy]

First, to describe the process as plagiarism is a raging anachronism. The concept of plagiarism implies copyright implies intellectual property implies, I would be willing to guess, the rise of the middle classes. Absolutely none of which have any bearing whatsoever on the Ancient Near East. There was no intellectual copyright. People very often attributed their works to more famous people in order to get people to read them. There was no jealous concern of "my idea."

Not really, plagiarism is loosely defined as the imitation of another's intellectual property. There's difference between copyright infringement - what you are talking about - and plagiarism.

[inked]

CBG, you err. The word you are using was not invented until 1615. See here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism