About Job

[shoewindow3000]

I always believed that the Book of Job was a parable, but lately I have heard that he was a real prophet.

Is the Book of Job a parable or is he a real prophet?

 

[PeterK]

I always believed that the Book of Job was a parable, but lately I have heard that he was a real prophet.

Is the Book of Job a parable or is he a real prophet?

Does it matter? Is the story diminished in any way - save archeologically - if it is pure fiction? Is it any less revealing or instructive?

And if we did unearth the ossuary of Job would it add anything to the story - other than ‘hey, wadayaknow, there really was a Job’?

Does it matter? Is the story more profound in any way - save archeologically - if it is historical truth? Is it any more revealing or instructive?

I would really appreciate Shakespeare more and hold his works in higher esteem if they could only find the remains of Romeo and Juliet.

Get my drift?

I don’t mean to be a sour puss, but the story, parable, narrative, tale, etc. stands on its own. It doesn’t need archeological verification. And let me also say Biblical archeology is very interesting and praiseworthy. I’m not bashing that field of study.

PeteK

 

[geekborj]

Moreover, according to the (original) Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Catholic commentators, however, almost with-out exception, hold** Job to have actually existed** and his personality to have been preserved by popular tradition. Nothing in the text makes it necessary to doubt his historical existence.”

The same encyclopedia cites James 510-)11 that mentions Job:
"Take as an example of hardship and patience, brothers, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of the perseverance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because “the Lord is compassionate and merciful.” "

Again, as PeterK already explained, we must look at the “essence” which is true. Hence, “The Book of Job, therefore, has a kernel of fact, with which have been united many imaginative additions that are not strictly historical.” Ibid] One can talk about M. Jackson and some “legends” surrounding him. But these stories being just “legends” does not imply that M. Jackson did not exist.

 

[BibleAnswer]

It is a mistake to differentiate literal from parable.

As the whole bible is written as a parable.

a parable is an earthly story with a spiritual meaning.

The book of Job was literal, true, historical, earthly. There was a Job for real.

However the story of Job is the earthly story, it is meant to teach and convey a message, however the true meaning would be spiritual.

The book of job is a parable. the story is the earthly aspect, the spiritual meaning is deeper and more difficult to grasp.

 

[PeterK]

But these stories being just “legends” does not imply that M. Jackson did not exist.

I am glad you pointed that out, because I am certainly not insisting, in any degree, that Job or Noah or Abraham or Cain etc absolutely never existed or that certain events absolutely never happened. I cannot prove that any more than someone can absolutely prove they did exist or happen. Not at all. In fact the very idea of Salvation History insists we believe certain OT stories to have some degree of factual historical truth as their point of origin. How much of this original historical fact is retained in the story forming process is the question. I would say not much, **BUT **that this “not much” is more than enough to accomplish what the Holy Spirit wants to accomplish in Sacred Scripture. Note that I am regarding mainly the Torah.

The often neglected OT genealogies show that from the beginning God brought humanity into relationship with Himself and has maintained this close tie with a ‘chosen people’ through time. Now this may prefigure a great many things, but its historicity is key to its essential meaning and so separating the two becomes problematic. Do we have to believe the names and ages of the genealogies are perfectly and literally true? No. But we cannot dismiss what these genealogies point to; that God has indeed has been present to a select group of people through all of human history. He has never abandoned humanity. These ‘chosen’ people were aware of this Presence and this Presence became the core of their self-identity. They would reflect on this truth and eventually record these reflections and hand them forward in the from of stories and genealogies to maintain their individual and collective identity as a people. So in this sense, the genealogies are “true.” This is the truth I seek in the scriptures, not the literal truth of whether so-and-so was actually 900 years old. This literalism leads one away from the scriptures to look for explanations like “the flood changed the atmosphere so people didn’t live as long any more.” That is not scripture study. I really do not know what to call it.

I have wandered again.

The character Job falls outside of the salvation continuum proper (he’s not in any of the genealogies), and as a result, his actual historical existence does not contribute much, if anything, to the significance of the story.

Catholic commentators, however, almost with-out exception,…

This may not be the case today. The OCE was published between 1907 and 1912. Its authors are all deceased - God rest their souls. There has been several generations of Catholic biblical scholars since and the current class is not known for its conservative attitude.

Another thought, it seems the degree of historical accuracy increases as the scriptures become more recent. Maccabees having a higher degree of historical accuracy than Joshua for example. ?

thanks for listening,

PeterK

 

[PeterK]

…As the whole bible is written as a parable…

No. I disagree. The various genealogies are lists - not parables.
The ‘rules’ outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are collected codes of ethics - not parables.
The list of the Ten Commandments is not a parable.
The Psalms are poetic reflections and meditations - not parables.
Proverbs is a collection of wisdom sayings - not parables.
The letters of Paul are, well, letters - written correspondence - not parables.

Can any of these point or allude to a greater truth? Yes. But that characteristic alone does not a parable make. All of scripture is not in the form of a parable. Sorry, its just not that simple - at least for me.

PeterK

 

[BibleAnswer]

No. I disagree. The various genealogies are lists - not parables.
The ‘rules’ outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are collected codes of ethics - not parables.
The list of the Ten Commandments is not a parable.
The Psalms are poetic reflections and meditations - not parables.
Proverbs is a collection of wisdom sayings - not parables.
The letters of Paul are, well, letters - written correspondence - not parables.

Can any of these point or allude to a greater truth? Yes. But that characteristic alone does not a parable make. All of scripture is not in the form of a parable. Sorry, its just not that simple - at least for me.

PeterK

Good response Peter, you are using scripture to debate me. sortof
I will respond a little bit later.

 

[MDK]

It is a mistake to differentiate literal from parable.

As the whole bible is written as a parable.

a parable is an earthly story with a spiritual meaning.

The book of Job was literal, true, historical, earthly. There was a Job for real.

However the story of Job is the earthly story, it is meant to teach and convey a message, however the true meaning would be spiritual.

The book of job is a parable. the story is the earthly aspect, the spiritual meaning is deeper and more difficult to grasp.

This is an errant view, and one that misleads people, leading them away from truth rather than coming to know the truth. The people who wrote the OT, the Jews as well as the people who wrote the NT, the Catholics both understand that there are four ways to read Scriptures. One of them is literal. We must read Scriptures as they were intended, and not as you simply desire. Besides, no one said that you could even interpret Scriptures properly. Teaching the truths of Scripture is the domain of God’s one Church, with the office of Peter as visible head.

 

[MDK]

Good response Peter, you are using scripture to debate me. sortof
I will respond a little bit later.

You will try, but you have no legitimate leg to stand on. You only present what you want to believe, and nothing more than that. God’s word is far too important for people like you to distort. Catholics have protected God’s teachings for almost 2,000 years, and protected the Bible she authored for some 1,600 years now. When you conflict with that, you conflict with God, and so you are in need of correction.

 

[PeterK]

Good response Peter, you are using scripture to debate me. sortof. I will respond a little bit later.

Actually, BibleAnswer, I never said you were wrong - just that I disagree. Maybe the stark “No.” was a bit heavy handed. We do not need to debate like adversaries, but hopefully, we can discuss our understandings and interests as co-believers. I have my flawed way of seeing things. Expressing myself helps me achieve some clarity of thought. While I hope I can provide a convincing explanation of my ideas, I’m not trying to win a competition. I also need to listen to what others have to say. I welcome whatever dialog springs up between us.

PeterK

 

[MDK]

Good response Peter, you are using scripture to debate me. sortof
I will respond a little bit later.

I will say you are wrong, and you’ve done the work to guarantee this… We believe (correctly so) that the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. You are not the pillar and foundation of the truth. When we present the Catholic Church teachings faithfully, we are guaranteed of not being in error. When you oppose Catholic Church official teaching, then you are guaranteeing that you are in error.