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?

[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?

[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.

[Valandil]

I suppose it's not a thing we need to parse words about. We're reading the lamentations of a man who feels like everything has been unjustly taken from him. In those circumstances, one might say any of a number of things - without changing the message about God.

[GrayMouser]

Certainly above my pay-grade

Translation issues in Job 13:15
Question:
Job 13:15 in the KJV reads: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." The same verse in the NRSV reads: "See, he will kill me; I have no hope." The sentiment of the first is the polar opposite of the second. Which is the better translation?

Asked by: Anne
Answers:
Both have merit

Several of the ancient translations, including the LXX and the Syriac, have "to him" rather than "no" so they read it as "He will kill me, but (or and) I will hope in him, or trust him (vs. "but (or "and") I will not trust him.") Kittle's Hebrew Bible in the textual notes regards the "him" as the preferred reading; the NIV follows this choice. Others, like the NRSV and the ASV, appear to regard the "him" as a correction of the difficulty of the "not" and so secondary. The other influence on the choice is what best fits the context. Kittle and NIV appear to see "I will trust him" as parallel to the hope such expressed in as in vv. 18-19. I can see strong arguments either way.

http://www.massbible.org/job-translation-question

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Others, like the NRSV and the ASV, appear to regard the "him" as a correction of the difficulty of the "not" and so secondary.

This was also in my mind; it seems that scribes tended to "tidy up" difficult texts or passages when they were transcribing them. A good example is the ending of Mark, which the oldest and best manuscripts end with the women leaving the tomb and saying nothing, because they are afraid. Many other manuscripts add an "easier" ending with Christ appearing to people, the great commission, and the ascension, but scholars almost universally seem to believe that this is a emendation by copyists, who didn't like the "bleakness" of the original ending. Reading "yet will I hope for him" instead of "I have no hope" a similar emendation of a difficult text. Personally, I think the difficulty of the texts is something to be embraced, and to be wrestled with, rather than something to be made easier, so I suppose I tend to give a "preferential option" to more unsettling readings, as long as they don't radically contradict the rest. As you noted, Val, these are the outcries of a man on the edge of despair, so it needn't be seen as an absolute or final destruction of the final message of divine transcendence.

[inked]

GW, what makes you think the texts are a mess?

There are in Job a number of words that appear there only. These hapax legomena -things once said- make translation difficult for lack of comparison, but that is not the same thing as the text being corrupted. The entry in THE JEWISH STUDY BIBLE (Oxford Press, 2004) is enlightening and notes:
"Job is the most difficult book of the Bible to interpret, not only because of its elaborate arguments, especially in the LORD's speeches in the final chapters, but also because of its highly poetic language, which is particularly ambiguous and contains a large number of unusual or unique words (hapax legomena, "things said once," that is, words not appearing elsewhere in the Bible). Thus, any translation of the book must be tentative, as translators or commentators have often understood the same verse or phrase in diametrically opposite ways."

This is far from saying that the texts themselves are a mess, which is a suggestion that the variant readings of the recorded letters are not agreed upon, IMHO. Also, the text as it is currently written may have had some transitions in the placement of its parts. But significantly, ""there is no direct manuscript evidence of this for Job" (ibid).

The JSB uses the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation and renders 13:15 as follows in the main text:
c-He may well slay me; I may have no hope;-c
Yet I will argue my case before Him.

With the notation, c-c So with kethib; others with qere "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him" in the footnotes.

The following verse, 16, reads here "In this too is my salvation: That no impious man can come into His presence."

The thought seems fairly clear that at issue is the outcome of the audience with God and whether or not Job will survive the presence of God. Yet the whole intention of the passage as revealed in verse 13, "Keep quiet; I will have my say, Come what may upon me."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Basically, because my OT professor said so. But there are certainly some difficulties with the text. Aramaic and Greek words appear in bits of it, for one.

[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!