Using Job as a Proof Text

[frog]

I must admit, I've often found Job confusing on many fronts. One is knowing which parts speak truly of God and which parts do not? This is especially the case since God says that Job's three friends did not speak rightly of Him (Job 42:7).

How can we determine which parts speak truly of God and which do not?

This question comes amidst trying to memorise WSC Q4 where the proof text for God's infinity is Job 11:7-9.

 

[JP Wallace]

That's a great question - my answer would be use it carefully and perhaps as a general rule, we can take his friends to be speaking truth when what they say comports accurately with other Scripture. So for example clearly they are wrong when they present a strict obedience = blessing ethic, as the rest of Scripture shows that the righteous do suffer, not just the wicked and indeed as Ps73 shows us the wicked sometimes don't suffer, when the righteous do.

 

[Ed Walsh]

That's a great question - my answer would be use it carefully and perhaps as a general rule, we can take his friends to be speaking truth when what they say comports accurately with other Scripture. So for example clearly they are wrong when they present a strict obedience = blessing ethic, as the rest of Scripture shows that the righteous do suffer, not just the wicked and indeed as Ps73 shows us the wicked sometimes don't suffer, when the righteous do.

Good point! (as a generalization)

A few thoughts-

[C]learly, they are wrong when they present a strict obedience = blessing ethic, as the rest of Scripture shows that the righteous do suffer,

Couldn't we say the same for the book of Proverbs? The Proverbs paints a pretty positive picture of this present life for the righteous and an awful "best life now" for the wicked and the fool.

Proverbs 1:32-33​

For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, And the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, And shall be quiet from fear of evil.​

Going now from Proverbs to Ecclestiatees, we get a somewhat random outcome for this life considered under the sun. And many times, Eccl. shows that the result for the righteous and wicked are turned completely upside down.

Ecclesiastes 8:14​

There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity.​

In sum.

• Proverbs – Here we have, The way things ought to be.
• Psalms – In the world, ye shall have tribulation. The blessed and only reliable place for the righteous is in the secret place of his heart.
• Ecclesiastes – The way things often are. Frequently bad, nearly always dull and unsatisfying. And then you die.
• Job – But sometimes, everything can seem to go radically wrong. Job is the flip side of Proverbs. (My view – I think Job is about the sorrow and suffering of Christ as He interacts with His Father. Apart from this perspective, I consider Job nearly incoherent)

 

[alexanderjames]

A lay-person’s perspective - the examples of Job’s friends demonstrate that the truths of God’s word can be misapplied to understanding our lives and the lives of others. God’s ways are not our ways, and therefore He calls us to lean not on our own understanding, but humbly and fearfully trust Him, and seek for His wisdom.

 

[greenbaggins]

Alex's position is close to that of Joseph Caryl, who had perhaps the best thoughts on the matter. He said that we can quote Job's friends as generally true theology much of the time, though it must be carefully done. The problem comes when trying to apply Job's friends' theology to someone like Job. Deuteronomy says, basically, "If you obey, you will be blessed, and if you disobey, you will be cursed." Job's friends tried to reverse that: "If you are blessed, it is because you obey, and if you are cursed, it is because you disobeyed." That reversal, then, is quite incorrect. Comparing Job to Deuteronomy, then, is most instructive, as it tells us that the truth of Deuteronomy only goes one direction: from behavior to result. We cannot reason logically from result to behavior, unless we acknowledge that there might be many possible reasons for the result, not only the ones Deuteronomy mentions, and not only our behavior. So these two problems (misunderstanding of Deuteronomy's theology, though I say that carefully, as Job was probably written before Deuteronomy; and misapplying Scripture to specific situations) constitute the "not speaking the truth about me" that God mentions. It is not necessary to make God's words mean that Job's friends said nothing correct at all.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The RHB study bible suggests the setting is the patriarchal period likely but that the time of composition could be later (suggesting Solomon as a possible author). My question is, if the writing were contemporaneous, it (again RHB) would not have been written in Hebrew. How would it have come into the corpus of Hebrew Scripture if written outside and prior to Moses that many hundreds of years prior?

 

[arapahoepark]

The RHB study bible suggests the setting is the patriarchal period likely but that the time of composition could be later (suggesting Solomon as a possible author). My question is, if the writing were contemporaneous, it (again RHB) would not have been written in Hebrew. How would it have come into the corpus of Hebrew Scripture if written outside and prior to Moses that many hundreds of years prior?

In my reading, Hebrew may have evolved from Ammonite(?)/Amorite(?) (Don't remember which) while Abraham was in Canaan. Then if Job is Jobab from Edom...well it makes more sense.

A Short History of the Hebrew Language by Chaim Rabin

 

[greenbaggins]

The RHB study bible suggests the setting is the patriarchal period likely but that the time of composition could be later (suggesting Solomon as a possible author). My question is, if the writing were contemporaneous, it (again RHB) would not have been written in Hebrew. How would it have come into the corpus of Hebrew Scripture if written outside and prior to Moses that many hundreds of years prior?

Here all positions are somewhat speculative. Some believe Hebrew is what Adam and Eve spoke in the garden of Eden. Others believe Hebrew came into existence at the Tower of Babel. Since the Hebrew Bible is our earliest attestation of the language, all we can really know for certain is that Hebrew predates Moses. We don't really know by how long. There may be a hint in the ancestor Eber (cognate with "Hebrew") in Genesis 10:24. But that is disputed also. I think it is possible for Hebrew to have been around long enough for the book of Job to have been written in it at the time of the patriarchs. The implied length of Job's life seems to point to Job's having lived in the time of the patriarchs. Of course, that is not the same as saying it was written in that time. It could have been written a thousand years after the actual time of Job.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The RHB study bible suggests the setting is the patriarchal period likely but that the time of composition could be later (suggesting Solomon as a possible author). My question is, if the writing were contemporaneous, it (again RHB) would not have been written in Hebrew. How would it have come into the corpus of Hebrew Scripture if written outside and prior to Moses that many hundreds of years prior?

Here all positions are somewhat speculative. Some believe Hebrew is what Adam and Eve spoke in the garden of Eden. Others believe Hebrew came into existence at the Tower of Babel. Since the Hebrew Bible is our earliest attestation of the language, all we can really know for certain is that Hebrew predates Moses. We don't really know by how long. There may be a hint in the ancestor Eber (cognate with "Hebrew") in Genesis 10:24. But that is disputed also. I think it is possible for Hebrew to have been around long enough for the book of Job to have been written in it at the time of the patriarchs. The implied length of Job's life seems to point to Job's having lived in the time of the patriarchs. Of course, that is not the same as saying it was written in that time. It could have been written a thousand years after the actual time of Job.

Moses wrote ages after the fact of creation, the deluge, and the patriarchal era; yet he wrote reliably being led by the Spirit. Likewise, Solomon could also write under inspiration of events that belonged to the patriarchal age. Count me as one who (not with dogmatic certainty, but provisionally) finds the RHB proposals consistent with my own view, long held.

The narrative bracket contains patriarchal-period events concerning both the historic Job, his family and friends; as well as a window on the heavenly court, real spiritual interaction if conveyed to us in accommodated terms for our human limitations. The internal structure of five voices in dialog (six, counting God's toward the end) fits the pattern of an ancient drama. No, I don't think this is Solomon or another human author just imagining what such back-and-forth might have contained; but the text is poetry, not prose, not meant for exactly the realism of dialog in historical narrative.

Ezekiel 14:14,20 and James 5:11 mention Job in such a way as to lead us to regard him as more than a literary character. This is a drama authored by the Holy Spirit, having as its main character a real historic man of true faith who suffered, but grew in faith through his trial; the event and result of which was intended not only for his good, but that of generations that followed when they too went through the dark night of the soul. Three of the others--Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar--were either three actual, historic counselors of dubitable genuis, or a composite of many more than just three. Elihu (here I'm in agreement with W. Henry Green) was a prophet of the LORD, who prepared Job better for his encounter with the Almighty, once he had silenced those false voices and whispers against his conscience.

The three counselors present a common, typical, even partly accurate (but then really erroneous) view of man-in-relation-to God, mediated through providential circumstances. Using the cause-and-effect quality of the created universe, the reality of consequences and of the certainty of a divine reckoning, and a moralistic lens (rather than one of grace and faith) for religion, they offer up judgments and half-truths first to encourage Job to "fess up" to his sins; moving on to harsher and harsher condemnation in the face of Job's protests. They also run out of gas, before Job is left to conclude their interactions.

Again, I am indebted to W.H. Green for showing us how Job gives a far better presentation of the character of God than do the three friends; as well as rising to a triumphant faith-declaration in passages like ch.13:15 and 19:25. Job's faith is genuine, and Satan's aim is ruined by the proof of it, even before Job gets his audience with God. God, says WHG, wants to bring Job into that much better still an acquaintance with himself, while Satan wants to ruin him. So, when Job has gone as far as he can with the faith he possessed at the start, Elihu steps forth to speak and to make Job ready. The LORD does not owe Job an audience or answers--indeed, that is made clear by the fact that no answers are given him. But what Job is (and by extension we are) given is an encounter capable of bringing him and us into an even greater awareness of the greatness and majesty of God. We see him even more clearly by the end.

The narrative conclusion, where Job is blessed twice over, should not be read as if Job's reward for passing his test or increasing faith was to gain material increase. This idea is incompatible with the lessons of Job's struggle of faith and his encounter with the Presence of the LORD. If the LORD saw fit to take Job to glory right away, or leave him in this life with little to show for the remainder of his years, Job would have already been in possession of God's true spiritual and most valuable gift. One major correction of the drama is to teach Israel that "reading providence" is a false index to gauge one's relationship with God. To have anything at all, or twice as much, is no unquestionable proof of God's approval nor how much; nor does the loss of such infallibly tell of divine displeasure. The LORD gives and takes away as he wills, a truth Job articulated (perhaps without yet fully understanding the fact) all the way back in Job.1:21.

Green's book is available in various versions, including a Banner of Truth reprint, retitled as Conflict and Triumph. The original is not easy reading, and the book has been reedited at least once (see here: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Bo...GREEN&sortby=17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1 ) You can find an original printing online, for example

The Argument of the Book of Job Unfolded : William Henry Green : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

archive.org

 

[frog]

Thank you all, that's helpful

 

[Jack K]

Job itself is actually very helpful in teaching us (1) how to receive facts about God from the Bible and (2) how to use prooftexts.

In the first case, we learn that we can be absolutely correct in our factual doctrine of God and yet wrong in how we approach God relationally and how we apply the doctrine in our daily lives with God. A reader who has been pondering the complexities of Job will get to Job 42:7 and realize that when it says the friends have not spoken what is right, it does not mean their doctrine of matters such as God's infinity is in error. The friends are actually very right about that, but they are wrong about what it should mean for Job's whole attitude toward life with God. This is a common Bible-reading error. We get focused on our factual correctness while we neglect our heart's incorrect approach.

To the second point, we learn that proof texting is not a simple "here's a verse that proves it" business. Prooftexts do have value. The biblical authors themselves use prooftexts. But the practice involves using a verse without showing its context. This means the person who cites a prooftext has a responsibility to consider context as he uses the text, so that he uses it appropriately. He must consider both the larger passage surrounding that text and the Bible as a whole. In the case of Westminster, we can be confident that the authors did not just throw up Job 11:7-9 to be a passage that by itself "proves" their statement, but rather used those verses having considered both the complexities of Job and the Bible's entire revelation about God. (By extension, if we start to wonder if Job 42:7 is a prooftext that proves Westminster unwise in how it cites chapter 11, we should first account for what "they have not spoken what is right" actually means within the context of Job as a whole. We should also consider whether or not the rest of the Bible treats Job as one big lie—which it does not. Consider context when both using and evaluating prooftexts.)

 

[ADKing]

Three of the others--Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar--were either three actual, historic counselors of dubitable genuis, or a composite of many more than just three.

I appreciate much of what you wrote, brother. Can I press you on this just a bit? This statement seems unnecessarily influenced by critical views. Why would you suggest they were possible "composites" of historical characters rather than accept the text at face value? Thanks.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I appreciate much of what you wrote, brother. Can I press you on this just a bit? This statement seems unnecessarily influenced by critical views. Why would you suggest they were possible "composites" of historical characters rather than accept the text at face value? Thanks.

If we were alive, say, in Reformation era, and I made such a proposal--in "pre critical" times, simply making a believing (faith-filled) literary analysis--I doubt it would raise so many eyebrows as it may in the present hour. I don't hold (loosely) the possibilities of 1) just the three, or 2) these three plus, because I'm skeptical about the text at all. I'm not influenced or intimidated by the critical-crowd, period.

By the same token, nor am I willing to overlook something as plain as the style of the dramatic presentation, and what that literary genre and construction might say about the author's self-aware task for conveying holy truth to the reader/hearer, being influenced (again, outside the text) by how my friends or on-side allies could interpret ME. As if I had an a priori duty for keeping credentialed within "conservative" spectrum limits to treat every stage-detail of this play as if it was of equal historic representation.

Again, I accept the text as. it. is. And as infallible. And as inspired, preserved, and perspicuous. I think God inspired someone--Solomon is a good candidate in my opinion--to create an historical drama out of the lived experience of the patriarch Job. I don't think it's unworthy of a believer to think so, or a less-than-respectful intimation of the Holy Spirit's character to attribute such a literary project to him. Some elements in a biographical drama need to be historic, factual, true to life. Some artistic license is also permissible--true to the drama--for the sake of the message of TRUTH meant for the audience.

Sure, someone will take the kind of literary analysis I've applied here to a unique poetic portion of the Bible, and leverage it to imply (or accuse) that therefore almost any other portions of the Bible may be similarly removed from the realm of historic presentation. For some traditionally minded folk, that concern is enough to make them run the other way, to refuse the notion that Job is anything but historic reportage in every chapter and verse. I think that's being less concerned with a faithful reading, and more concerned with avoiding a hypothetical pitfall.

I regard the historic-narrative portions of the Bible universally to be true, even in detail, not simply in the ballpark of factual reportage. I think so, even when there are apparent discrepancies (as some claim) between the Bible and outside reports; as well as when internally some passage seems to conflict with another (e.g. certain Gospel accounts of events). I don't believe those apparent discrepancies or contradictions are real; but it is part of our interpretive task to harmonize the reports that are within the Bible, and stand with the Bible's report against outside reports.

What matters to me is the text; and understanding the truth it was meant to teach across generations, incorporated through the particular genre in which the truth-text is embedded. The Bible IS the word of God, it does not merely contain it. If it was vital to the Holy Spirit's intent for there to have been historically three, actual and only three friends of Job in the midst of his temporal circumstance, I would cling to that fact with my dying strength.

I don't doubt Job had a wife, who suffered with him and bore him by the conclusion 20 children (even though she is not explicitly told us to be the mother of either the first or second set). We have the names of his last three daughters, Job.42:14. I think these are not-insignificant historic details, and contribute to the realism of the whole story. I don't think the very same must be said of the three friends, whose dialog with Job is set in a very obvious literary pattern, a dramatic pattern in keeping with other ancient literary examples of drama. The names and places tell us at a minimum there were such "comforters" come to see the saint in his extremity, and provide some further geolocation data for the setting.

Yes, God could have provided just three men, making sure to preserve their true names and places to the time of inscripturation (and thereafter). However, it's not necessary that he did so; and if we insist on it, I don't see how the same thought doesn't also insist on saying all the parties also spoke in poetic style. But as granting the words spoken by and to Job are likely recast as poetry, because the genre, therefore other adjustments for the sake of the genre and presentation are allowed.

I hope that makes my stance abundantly clear. Thanks for the question.

 

[ADKing]

If we were alive, say, in Reformation era, and I made such a proposal--in "pre critical" times, simply making a believing (faith-filled) literary analysis--I doubt it would raise so many eyebrows as it may in the present hour. I don't hold (loosely) the possibilities of 1) just the three, or 2) these three plus, because I'm skeptical about the text at all. I'm not influenced or intimidated by the critical-crowd, period.

By the same token, nor am I willing to overlook something as plain as the style of the dramatic presentation, and what that literary genre and construction might say about the author's self-aware task for conveying holy truth to the reader/hearer, being influenced (again, outside the text) by how my friends or on-side allies could interpret ME. As if I had an a priori duty for keeping credentialed within "conservative" spectrum limits to treat every stage-detail of this play as if it was of equal historic representation.

Again, I accept the text as. it. is. And as infallible. And as inspired, preserved, and perspicuous. I think God inspired someone--Solomon is a good candidate in my opinion--to create an historical drama out of the lived experience of the patriarch Job. I don't think it's unworthy of a believer to think so, or a less-than-respectful intimation of the Holy Spirit's character to attribute such a literary project to him. Some elements in a biographical drama need to be historic, factual, true to life. Some artistic license is also permissible--true to the drama--for the sake of the message of TRUTH meant for the audience.

Sure, someone will take the kind of literary analysis I've applied here to a unique poetic portion of the Bible, and leverage it to imply (or accuse) that therefore almost any other portions of the Bible may be similarly removed from the realm of historic presentation. For some traditionally minded folk, that concern is enough to make them run the other way, to refuse the notion that Job is anything but historic reportage in every chapter and verse. I think that's being less concerned with a faithful reading, and more concerned with avoiding a hypothetical pitfall.

I regard the historic-narrative portions of the Bible universally to be true, even in detail, not simply in the ballpark of factual reportage. I think so, even when there are apparent discrepancies (as some claim) between the Bible and outside reports; as well as when internally some passage seems to conflict with another (e.g. certain Gospel accounts of events). I don't believe those apparent discrepancies or contradictions are real; but it is part of our interpretive task to harmonize the reports that are within the Bible, and stand with the Bible's report against outside reports.

What matters to me is the text; and understanding the truth it was meant to teach across generations, incorporated through the particular genre in which the truth-text is embedded. The Bible IS the word of God, it does not merely contain it. If it was vital to the Holy Spirit's intent for there to have been historically three, actual and only three friends of Job in the midst of his temporal circumstance, I would cling to that fact with my dying strength.

I don't doubt Job had a wife, who suffered with him and bore him by the conclusion 20 children (even though she is not explicitly told us to be the mother of either the first or second set). We have the names of his last three daughters, Job.42:14. I think these are not-insignificant historic details, and contribute to the realism of the whole story. I don't think the very same must be said of the three friends, whose dialog with Job is set in a very obvious literary pattern, a dramatic pattern in keeping with other ancient literary examples of drama. The names and places tell us at a minimum there were such "comforters" come to see the saint in his extremity, and provide some further geolocation data for the setting.

Yes, God could have provided just three men, making sure to preserve their true names and places to the time of inscripturation (and thereafter). However, it's not necessary that he did so; and if we insist on it, I don't see how the same thought doesn't also insist on saying all the parties also spoke in poetic style. But as granting the words spoken by and to Job are likely recast as poetry, because the genre, therefore other adjustments for the sake of the genre and presentation are allowed.

I hope that makes my stance abundantly clear. Thanks for the question.

Thanks for explaining. I find this explanation remarkably disturbing, however. It offers absolutely zero reason for discounting the plain meaning of the text other than a supposed "literary pattern" (which I doubt any orthodox interpreter would deny it is in poetic format). What about the form being "literary" or poetic is incongruous with the actual historicity which is also asserted? Or what about its poetic/literary form would even suggest such an idea or possibility? This is an extremely dangerous way to handle the Bible, brother. You rightly acknowledge the historicity of Job, his wife, his children (obviously God and Satan). As you point out, the friends are given actual names and geographic locations. God speaks about them as individuals at the end of the book. They are introduced in the opening narrative portion of the book just like everyone else, and not in the poetic section. And yet, inexplicably, for no other apparent reason than a "literary pattern" you suggest that it is possible they may have not been historical individuals but "composite characters"? I find that seriously concerning.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks for explaining. I find this explanation remarkably disturbing, however. It offers absolutely zero reason for discounting the plain meaning of the text other than a supposed "literary pattern" (which I doubt any orthodox interpreter would deny it is in poetic format). What about the form being "literary" or poetic is incongruous with the actual historicity which is also asserted? Or what about its poetic/literary form would even suggest such an idea or possibility? This is an extremely dangerous way to handle the Bible, brother. You rightly acknowledge the historicity of Job, his wife, his children (obviously God and Satan). As you point out, the friends are given actual names and geographic locations. God speaks about them as individuals at the end of the book. They are introduced in the opening narrative portion of the book just like everyone else, and not in the poetic section. And yet, inexplicably, for no other apparent reason than a "literary pattern" you suggest that it is possible they may have not been historical individuals but "composite characters"? I find that seriously concerning.

I think the strongest part of your position is found in reference to God's direct address to Eliphaz in Job.42:7. My response goes back to my statement making a distinction between "true to life" and "true to the drama." Obviously, if these perfectly coincide, there isn't even a single issue here. At question is whether the book of Job is a drama, a biographical staged presentation (biopic) based on actual events; or is the book of Job even more than a documentary, is it a photorealistic play-by-play of actual verbal interchanges in sequential order? Is it something in between? The dramatized God could address the dramatized Eliphaz in Job.42:7, and this be 100% true to the drama. The events of history would be both true of themselves, and truthfully correlative to the dramatic event. God rebuked the errorists in history, no less than in the play; but as in the scenes of heaven at the play's outset, the description is accommodated to the audience' capability, and the limits of the form.

I have adopted the view that Job is a drama, and by that assumption I'm led to weigh the details presented in the text in light of it. I hold in highest regard "the plain meaning" of the text, but that plainness is inseparable from the literature that embeds it. The "plain meaning" e.g. of portions of the book of Revelation (and biblical apocalyptic lit generally) has often been wrested out of context to prove nonsense. My position in regard to the book of Job is that due to nature of drama, including the occasional need to restrict the number of characters for the sake of the audience following along, it is no prejudice to truth if true-to-life Job had more than three friends who came to him with misplaced advice; in which case those all were condensed to three true-to-the-drama. The whole work is the drama, including the prose sections; the prologue and epilogue are conditioned by the dialogues.

I did offer specific reasons for proposing that dogmatism on every particular respecting Job's friends in the drama need not be united in perfection with the historic reality of his friends in real life. Here they are again:

1) Genre: poetry
2) Form/pattern: drama.
a) limitations/demands of the form
b) artistic license

The "literary pattern" of the majority of Job, including the parts assigned to the three friends, is that of ancient drama. It isn't simply poetry, though it is that too, in the most general assignment of genre; and poetry in the nature of the case is not interpreted in literalist (hence historical) manner. Poetry may teach truth, but is so in a different way than reportage. It is figurative, fired with imagination, contains metaphor and countless other literary devices in profusion (poetry's indirectness is its primary characteristic), and aims at a person's emotional core. It gets to the truth less by a straight logical or propositional appeal, but roundabout through the heart and relational experience.

And, the form in which the poetry of Job is found is ancient drama. Even so, the inherent qualities of dramatic creations may not be swept aside because allegedly and a priori: an inspired biopic would never use artistic license; or, inspired biopics don't exist. Authors of drama put words in the mouths of their characters, and sometimes even create characters in order to further the purpose of the drama. The verbal interaction of Job and his three friends shows a high degree of stylized rhetoric. I am not afraid to assert that these men of history did not converse with one another using spontaneous or written lines of poetry. Job lay in ashes! Theirs was not a formal exchange happening in real life. But composed in a drama, their stylized rhetoric heightens the experience of the audience as they enter into Job's experience--his bodily, emotional, and spiritual suffering.

Therefore, since I think Job is ancient drama, and it's inspired; I thence think it could include artistic license, without prejudicing the accurate reports and truth-value of numerous other true-to-life historic accounts in the Bible that are not ancient drama. Being true to the drama is as important to that kind of creation as being true to life is important to historical reportage. Just because truth is in the Bible doesn't mean that only the latter is acceptable for any and all accounts, assuming there is a drama in the Bible. I claim: here in Job is the one drama; and according to that genre and form it powerfully expresses sacred truth. Whether the Eliphaz of history and the Eliphaz of drama are identical or analogous, it hardly affects accurate interpretation and understanding of Job, or calls God's veracity into doubt--no more than do arguments over whether Hosea actually married a prostitute named Gomer.

I think you must deal with the foundational issue of genre followed by form. Admit that poetry introduces intentional elasticity into literary interpretation with which even a faithful student of the Bible must cope, even if he insists afterward on the most strict historicity in detail, due to other overriding factors in his mind. I'm sorry that you are disturbed and concerned. I'm afraid you may be retreating into a parsimonious literalism, in the face of abuses you know come from the critics.

Try to understand what I'm affirming literarily, and the limit of where it takes me. Be at peace.

 

[ADKing]

I think the strongest part of your position is found in reference to God's direct address to Eliphaz in Job.42:7. My response goes back to my statement making a distinction between "true to life" and "true to the drama." Obviously, if these perfectly coincide, there isn't even a single issue here. At question is whether the book of Job is a drama, a biographical staged presentation (biopic) based on actual events; or is the book of Job even more than a documentary, is it a photorealistic play-by-play of actual verbal interchanges in sequential order? Is it something in between? The dramatized God could address the dramatized Eliphaz in Job.42:7, and this be 100% true to the drama. The events of history would be both true of themselves, and truthfully correlative to the dramatic event. God rebuked the errorists in history, no less than in the play; but as in the scenes of heaven at the play's outset, the description is accommodated to the audience' capability, and the limits of the form.

I have adopted the view that Job is a drama, and by that assumption I'm led to weigh the details presented in the text in light of it. I hold in highest regard "the plain meaning" of the text, but that plainness is inseparable from the literature that embeds it. The "plain meaning" e.g. of portions of the book of Revelation (and biblical apocalyptic lit generally) has often been wrested out of context to prove nonsense. My position in regard to the book of Job is that due to nature of drama, including the occasional need to restrict the number of characters for the sake of the audience following along, it is no prejudice to truth if true-to-life Job had more than three friends who came to him with misplaced advice; in which case those all were condensed to three true-to-the-drama. The whole work is the drama, including the prose sections; the prologue and epilogue are conditioned by the dialogues.

I did offer specific reasons for proposing that dogmatism on every particular respecting Job's friends in the drama need not be united in perfection with the historic reality of his friends in real life. Here they are again:

1) Genre: poetry
2) Form/pattern: drama.
a) limitations/demands of the form
b) artistic license

The "literary pattern" of the majority of Job, including the parts assigned to the three friends, is that of ancient drama. It isn't simply poetry, though it is that too, in the most general assignment of genre; and poetry in the nature of the case is not interpreted in literalist (hence historical) manner. Poetry may teach truth, but is so in a different way than reportage. It is figurative, fired with imagination, contains metaphor and countless other literary devices in profusion (poetry's indirectness is its primary characteristic), and aims at a person's emotional core. It gets to the truth less by a straight logical or propositional appeal, but roundabout through the heart and relational experience.

And, the form in which the poetry of Job is found is ancient drama. Even so, the inherent qualities of dramatic creations may not be swept aside because allegedly and a priori: an inspired biopic would never use artistic license; or, inspired biopics don't exist. Authors of drama put words in the mouths of their characters, and sometimes even create characters in order to further the purpose of the drama. The verbal interaction of Job and his three friends shows a high degree of stylized rhetoric. I am not afraid to assert that these men of history did not converse with one another using spontaneous or written lines of poetry. Job lay in ashes! Theirs was not a formal exchange happening in real life. But composed in a drama, their stylized rhetoric heightens the experience of the audience as they enter into Job's experience--his bodily, emotional, and spiritual suffering.

Therefore, since I think Job is ancient drama, and it's inspired; I thence think it could include artistic license, without prejudicing the accurate reports and truth-value of numerous other true-to-life historic accounts in the Bible that are not ancient drama. Being true to the drama is as important to that kind of creation as being true to life is important to historical reportage. Just because truth is in the Bible doesn't mean that only the latter is acceptable for any and all accounts, assuming there is a drama in the Bible. I claim: here in Job is the one drama; and according to that genre and form it powerfully expresses sacred truth. Whether the Eliphaz of history and the Eliphaz of drama are identical or analogous, it hardly affects accurate interpretation and understanding of Job, or calls God's veracity into doubt--no more than do arguments over whether Hosea actually married a prostitute named Gomer.

I think you must deal with the foundational issue of genre followed by form. Admit that poetry introduces intentional elasticity into literary interpretation with which even a faithful student of the Bible must cope, even if he insists afterward on the most strict historicity in detail, due to other overriding factors in his mind. I'm sorry that you are disturbed and concerned. I'm afraid you may be retreating into a parsimonious literalism, in the face of abuses you know come from the critics.

Try to understand what I'm affirming literarily, and the limit of where it takes me. Be at peace.

I won't continue to argue with you, Bruce. I do believe you are sincere in affirming your belief in the integrity of Scripture. I simply believe that your methodology unintentionally undermines your more fundamental, doctrinal commitment. You are allowing your assumptions about form to override normal principles of exegesis, in my opinion. I do not see how any of the positions you arrive at necessarily follow, even from an assumption that the form is dramatic. But I do desire to be at peace. Blessings.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I won't continue to argue with you, Bruce. I do believe you are sincere in affirming your belief in the integrity of Scripture. I simply believe that your methodology unintentionally undermines your more fundamental, doctrinal commitment. You are allowing your assumptions about form to override normal principles of exegesis, in my opinion. I do not see how any of the positions you arrive at necessarily follow, even from an assumption that the form is dramatic. But I do desire to be at peace. Blessings.

That's fine, I never considered your words argumentative. You asked me questions, I obliged with clarification. Naturally, I don't think my methodology is contradictory to my doctrine, but is consistent with hermeneutical principles generally of Reformed ministry since the Reformation.

Genre and form are not exegetically trivial. For instance, parables present as historical narrative; they have great verisimilitude; Jesus' (Lk.16:19-31) even names one main character. But we shouldn't assume because parables are intensely lifelike that we should doubt they are just stories, albeit profoundly connected to our reality on purpose; the parabolic form points us in a certain direction as to how they ought to be interpreted. Peace.