This is a decent essay (despite some rubbish at the end) attempting to deal with Job, a book which has troubled Jews and Christians for centuries. How to reconcile an all powerful and all merciful deity with the seemingly eternal and ghastly suffering of innocents. The Problem of Evil. I have always interpreted Job as a hideous demonstration of the intellectual feebleness and moral destitution of the Biblical God.
By his own words and actions, God has shown himself to be callously cruel, and utterly unworthy of human devotion.
4 Likes
That’s interesting, that the entire question Job, in his suffering, brings up - why does god allow evil? - is not answered by god.
It shows the futility of trying to justify the irrational nature of faith in a supposedly benevolent, omnipotent god, when even god himself refuses to (because he logically cannot) answer the question.
1 Like
Reminds me of the old adage that you cannot reason people out of a viewpoint they have not been reasoned into.
4 Likes
Very true!
1 Like
The King James Version of the Bible is beautiful. One of the most beautiful books in it is Job.
To atheists who appreciate its beauty, a translation that is not beautiful has no value; and questions it raises about “God” – his nature, his morality - are of no interest or use, except to demonstrate how inescapably unmanageable is the concept of such a being, which atheists do not need to be told.
The writer of the review, Ed Simon, prolifically published though he may be, is no master of his craft. Examples: He writes “a different tact” instead of “a different tack”. He uses the word “enormities” to mean “big things” though the word means “crimes”. ( I find that some dictionaries do now allow this malapropism!) And he writes that so-and-so “could care less” when he means “couldn’t care less”.
Apart from which, and worse, the writer makes no fresh, or apt, or penetrating, or illuminating point. Not one.
Sorry to be contrary, but in my opinion neither the translation under review (as far as I can gather from the descriptions and quotations) nor the review itself is worth reading.
But I am, of course, grateful as always for the contribution and the discussion.
2 Likes
There is no need to apologize for being contrary. Free discussions are the hallmark of open societies. Like-minded people can and will disagree from time to time.
Like so many other religious creations such as Michelangelo’s first Pieta, Salisbury Cathedral, and Mozart’s Great Mass in C Minor, The King James Version is an enduring monument of our culture.
In this case, however, I was less interested in the aesthetic virtues of this or that translation, and more concerned with the examination (grammatical errors notwithstanding) of the theology of Job. You are correct that atheists may not need to be told how profoundly untenable the concept of God is. Yet, even in this post-Christian era, the atheist position, as expounded by such writers as you and Hitchens, is indispensable.
Jillian, can you recommend any books or commentaries on Job?
3 Likes
Thank you for your understanding, Cogito.
In my very long life I have read many a commentary on the books of the Bible. One of the numerous libraries I belonged to in London was devoted entirely to theology and Bible commentary. But no, I’m sorry, I cannot now remember the title of a single one on Job, or any others.
There are bound to be a few million on the internet, but whether good or bad ---- One can only bite the apple to find out how it tastes.
2 Likes
Thank you, Jillian. I’ll certainly look into it.
2 Likes
A few years ago I asked a devout student of Judaism, whom I never met but who wrote to me about his belief, how his God could be both omnipotent and benevolent and yet allow “his creatures” to suffer, and he wrote back that God was NOT benevolent.
Then there is the plain statement in the KJV bible - Isaiah 45:7:
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Christian apologists have a hard time spinning that one!
The Book of Job demonstrates decisively that “God” is not good.
2 Likes
Well, at least the statement that God is NOT benevolent is a more rational - and honest - attempt at solving the conundrum!
But then it raises another one - if he is not benevolent, why worship him?
3 Likes
A very good question, Liz.
Maybe the god who boasts about his might and uses it to have Job tortured is worshipped out of fear. The Bible itself commands: “Fear the Lord.”
Maybe all gods are worshiped out of fear. But as the worshipers endow their terrifying gods not only with power and ruthlessness but also with touchy vanity, they have to pretend they do it out of love.
2 Likes
Yes, I think there are probably many more commands to “fear” the Lord in the Bible than to “love” him.
But these seemingly contradictory commands were well understood as the requirements of a “benevolent dictator”, which was the best they could hope for from human leadership in those days, so it’s no surprise this formed the basis for our concept of “God”.
1 Like
This is essentially what the Christians call the Epicurus Paradox:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Thanks, Jillian for that superb anecdote about the orthodox Jew. As Liz says, it is a way out of the “Paradox”, but not satisfactory. Why, indeed, would anyone worship a malevolent deity?
Thanks, also for the quote from Isaiah. It’s priceless!
3 Likes
Since Cogito mentioned “you and Hitchens”, I think you’d be interested to know that Hitch’s son, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens (born in May 1984), is an academic expert on extremism and terrorism groups (focusing mostly on radical Islam, it looks like, following in his dad’s footsteps). Now at GW University in DC, he previously worked for a short-lived think tank called Centre for Social Cohesion in London, which had been founded by conservative atheist Douglas Murray. It became part of the Henry Jackson Society.
Meleagrou-Hitchens, Alexander | Program on Extremism | The George Washington University (gwu.edu)
3 Likes
Thanks for that, Zerothruster. I knew none of it. It all happened after I gave up my own counter-terrorism struggle. My London-based Institute for the Study of Terrorism (1984-1990) was - or seemed to be - a lone bastion fighting the monsters by investigating and exposing them. Now there are many. I heartily wish them success, but cannot summon up much optimism that it will be achieved or is even possible.
3 Likes
I don’t understand - if Job is a Gentile, what God is he dealing with and recognizing? Evidently the Hebrew God, but how would Job acknowledge that? Might it not have made more sense to have tested the faith and loyalty of a very righteous one of the Chosen People?
2 Likes
You want sense from the bible? What next? Truth?
2 Likes
It’s a great poem, the book of Job. It’s opening is delightful though ridiculous. God asks Satan, “Where hast thou been?” And Satan lyrically replies, “From going to and fro upon the earth, and from walking up and down in it.”
Goethe borrowed that for his Faust, whom he substitutes for Satan.
1 Like
God is truly satanic in Job. It is incomprehensible that anyone could worship this cretin.
When you say Job is good poetry, Jillian, do you mean in the original Hebrew, the Septuagint Greek, the Vulgate Latin, or the KJV English?
2 Likes
The KJV English. I am told it is very true to the original and that the KJV translation into English is the only translation that does match the poetic beauty of the Hebrew. (And no doubt misses none of the horror, the terror, the cruelty, the absurdity.)
1 Like