R
rinnie
Guest
We all agree that Job is in the bible for a reason. Now some say he was a real person some say parable. What is the Traditional Catholic view on this?
- Status
D
DustinsDad
Guest
I don’t know about any official view - but most traditional folks such as myself would say “real person” in a heartbeat.
At a midday OF mass yesterday I had to hear in the sermon how “most scholars” believe the story of Jonah is a parable as well…
We just try to grin and bear it
.Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
P
Pious_Mat
Guest
I like to think there’s no “traditional Catholic” way to read scripture, but rather an “orthodox Catholic” way of reading scripture. The Church would certainly say that Job was a real person, and the Holy Father in Rome would most likely agree, given what he has written on scripture.
The Bible uses many literary forms–some are poetry, like the psalms, some metaphors, like the parables of Jesus, etc., but to take a book that offers a strikingly vivid description of a man set in historical context and to make it some kind of pleasant fairy-tale does not make sense.
It seems to me that Catholic or Protestant, the only people who believe that Job is nothing more than a fable and relegate him to Hans Christian Anderson status are modernists, and Catholics and many Protestants consider that heresy.
In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict makes the point that the Historical Jesus and the Scriptural Jesus are the same person, and I don’t see why that couldn’t be true of Job.
God Bless, and Happy reading,
Mat.
The Bible uses many literary forms–some are poetry, like the psalms, some metaphors, like the parables of Jesus, etc., but to take a book that offers a strikingly vivid description of a man set in historical context and to make it some kind of pleasant fairy-tale does not make sense.
It seems to me that Catholic or Protestant, the only people who believe that Job is nothing more than a fable and relegate him to Hans Christian Anderson status are modernists, and Catholics and many Protestants consider that heresy.
In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict makes the point that the Historical Jesus and the Scriptural Jesus are the same person, and I don’t see why that couldn’t be true of Job.
God Bless, and Happy reading,
Mat.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Real very Real
R
rinnie
Guest
I also was always taught to believe he was a real person. I have learned that there is truely no way to know since the author is unknown. Now please dont misunderstand what i am saying. it was certainly inspired like all the books in bible by Jesus himself. But what i mean is there is no way to say what way Jesus meant it to be. Lets say dispute it either way. The way i understand the church sees no way to say that it isnt a real person. But in the same token there is no way to prove it isnt a parable either. Am I correct on this. it is the words of God and the real issue at hand is whats the message he is telling us which we all agree. I just never heard of the debate untill recently. I just womdered if anyone else ever really investigated it. Or ever heard of the debate.
D
drafdog
Guest
When a book such as Job begins “Once upon a time there lived a man…” it reminds you of a particular style of narative. Highly doubtful that the original writer intended us to believe that this is a real person. Job is an inspired version of the current popular book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People.”
Matthew
Matthew
B
Brother_John
Guest
Matthew 12:39-42 might not settle it, but it’s food for thought.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Huh?
Douay-Rheims Bible:
Job 1:1-5
1 There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was Job, and that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil. 2 And there were born to him seven sons and three daughters. 3 And his possession was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a family exceeding great: and this man was great among all the people of the east. 4 And his sons went, and made a feast by houses every one in his day. And sending they called their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 And when the days of their feasting were gone about, Job sent to them, and sanctified them: and rising up early offered holocausts for every one of them. For he said: Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts. So did Job all days.
NOTES
1 “Hus”… The land of Hus was a part of Edom; as appears from Lam. 4. 21.-- Ibid.
1 “Simple”… That is, innocent, sincere, and without guile.
4 “And made a feast by houses”… That is, each made a feast in his own house and had his day, inviting the others, and their sisters.
5 “Blessed”… For greater horror of the very thought of blasphemy, the scripture both here and ver. 11, and in the following chapter, ver. 5 and 9, uses the word bless to signify its contrary.
*see http://www.drbo.org/chapter/20001.htm
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Sure - if Jonah in the whale’s belly was metaphor, maybe the resurrction was too. 'Tis a slippery slope to perdition.
P
Pious_Mat
Guest
No offence, I think that presumes a little, as it doesn’t take into account popular literary idiom that was used at the time, even in factual works. Many notable ancient histories, including some of Plutarch’s biographies, begin with “it is written” or “many years ago.” Even the Gospels use the words “now in those days” before talking specifically about Jesus, beginning with his baptism. If anything, this kind of language is used to distance the reader from a larger-than-life figure, like Coriolanus or Job.
Also, “There was a man in the land of Hus…” is not fairly-talish to me. If I wrote “There was a man in Michigan, whose name was John Doe, and was simple and upright…” there would absolutely no reason for the reader to doubt, working from the text alone, that John Doe doesn’t exist.
All I can say is that some day, when we all meet Job, we’ll laugh about this
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
AmenNo offence, I think that presumes a little, as it doesn’t take into account popular literary idiom that was used at the time, even in factual works. Many notable ancient histories, including some of Plutarch’s biographies, begin with “it is written” or “many years ago.” Even the Gospels use the words “now in those days” before talking specifically about Jesus, beginning with his baptism. If anything, this kind of language is used to distance the reader from a larger-than-life figure, like Coriolanus or Job.
Also, “There was a man in the land of Hus…” is not fairly-talish to me. If I wrote “There was a man in Michigan, whose name was John Doe, and was simple and upright…” there would absolutely no reason for the reader to doubt, working from the text alone, that John Doe doesn’t exist.
All I can say is that some day, when we all meet Job, we’ll laugh about this
B
Brother_John
Guest
Well, this might make an interesting thread of it’s own. As my college roommate, now Methodist pastor says…"The Old Testament was written FOR us, and the New Testament written TO us.
I personally think the OT is FULL of metaphor. If Jesus taught in parables, why is it so far-fetched to think that some of the OT was “parable” as well?
Likewise with Revelation. You’d have to take much of it as metaphor to get anything out of it to absorb.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Well, I don’t thnk anyone confused Jesus’ parables for factual accounts.
It’s one thing to say something is a parable because it’s described as such and the constant understanding has been as such. It’s quite another to try to make a something miraculous into a parable simply because the miracle is hard to believe - even though the faithful believed it as such for eons.
And certainly, if Jonah was a parable, then Matthew 12:39-42 certainly can cause doubt in the minds of many as to Jesus’ Divinity (as well as His physical resurrection) because He seems to have mistaken the parable for reality and he directly connects His coming resurrection to it as well. As I said, slippery slope. Matthew 12:39-42
Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here. The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here.
I think it’s very possible that the “attack” on Jonah is a backward “attack” on Our Lord…even though alot of folks have swallowed the argument without really thinking it through, and not quite realizing the implications.
And Revelation is written in that prophetic apocalyptic (what’s the word I’m looking for?) style and has always been understood as such. Only certain groups cut off from HMC has, in recent times, taken certain parts of Revelation and tried to make 'em literal.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
R
rinnie
Guest
Well the way i see it in the Book of Job if the church says he is a man and the Pope agrees thats all i need to know. As far as i personally feel if the Pope says its true its true. If someday we are supposed to be told other wise the Pope will be the first to know, since he gets it right from the top. So it may seem childish to some but im with the POPE. He is as close to Jesus we can get.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Interesting question. I did a bible study on Job and it was taught as a parable and not a real person. Maybe we can settle the question by going back to the source. I found a reference stating that not only was Job not real, it was written by Moses as a parable for the sufferring of the Jewish people:“Job never was and never existed, but it is only a parable.” --Talmud (Tr. Baba Bathra 15a)."Moses wrote his book …and also the book of Job."-- Talmud (Tr. Baba Bathra 14b)From: donmeh-west.com/Job.shtml
R
rinnie
Guest
P
Pious_Mat
Guest
Whoever the author of Job was is immaterial. We don’t know who wrote Hebrews, either, and that doesn’t bring it into questionability either. Actually, who wrote the Pentateuch is still up for debate, which only makes sense, since Moses dies before Deuteronomy is finished.
Also, I don’t think using the Jewish modernist authority above is really reliable. Below are articles by the same author that are called “kabbalisitc” which is rather dubious form of Jewish gnoticism. This author might be well educated, but has some eccentric beliefs, and you know what they say about scholarly articles found on the internet…
I’m not inclined to trust the Talmud either, since the portion on Jewish history was written around 500 AD, meaning that it’s hardly a source. It is also inextricably tied to the customs, worhsip, and opinions of the Pharisees, who at the time were railing against persecution and the rapid spread of Christianity. And even though the Talmud records customs that are thousands of years old, some its critical discussion is not necessarily objective or historical. The writings of the Church fathers on scripture are earlier and more reliable.
Also, I don’t think using the Jewish modernist authority above is really reliable. Below are articles by the same author that are called “kabbalisitc” which is rather dubious form of Jewish gnoticism. This author might be well educated, but has some eccentric beliefs, and you know what they say about scholarly articles found on the internet…
I’m not inclined to trust the Talmud either, since the portion on Jewish history was written around 500 AD, meaning that it’s hardly a source. It is also inextricably tied to the customs, worhsip, and opinions of the Pharisees, who at the time were railing against persecution and the rapid spread of Christianity. And even though the Talmud records customs that are thousands of years old, some its critical discussion is not necessarily objective or historical. The writings of the Church fathers on scripture are earlier and more reliable.
P
Pious_Mat
Guest
One last thing: Job is mention twice in Ezekiel:
14:14 “Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”
14:20 “Even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, says the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”
once in Tobit:
2:12-15 Now this trial the Lord therefore permitted to happen to him, that an example might be given to posterity of his patience, as also of holy Job. 13 For whereas he had always feared God from his infancy, and kept his commandments, he repined not against God because the evil of blindness had befallen him, 14 But continued immoveable in the fear of God, giving thanks to God all the days of his life. 15 For as the kings insulted over holy Job: so his relations and kinsmen mocked at his life, saying… (Douay-Rhiems)
and once in the NT in James:
5:11 “You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
Many look upon the entire contents of the book as a freely invented parable which is neither historical nor intended to be considered historical; no such man as Job ever lived. Catholic commentators, however, almost without 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 Scriptures seem repeatedly to take this for granted (cf. Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11; Tobit 2:12-15, according to the Vulgate — in the Greek text of Tobias there is no mention of Job). All the Fathers considered Job an historical person; some of their testimonies may be found in Knabenbauer, “Zu Job” (Paris, 1886), 12-13. The Martyrology of the Latin Church mentions Job on 10 May, that of the Greek Church on 6 May (cf. Acta SS.’ II, May, 494).
14:14 “Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”
14:20 “Even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, says the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”
once in Tobit:
2:12-15 Now this trial the Lord therefore permitted to happen to him, that an example might be given to posterity of his patience, as also of holy Job. 13 For whereas he had always feared God from his infancy, and kept his commandments, he repined not against God because the evil of blindness had befallen him, 14 But continued immoveable in the fear of God, giving thanks to God all the days of his life. 15 For as the kings insulted over holy Job: so his relations and kinsmen mocked at his life, saying… (Douay-Rhiems)
and once in the NT in James:
5:11 “You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
Many look upon the entire contents of the book as a freely invented parable which is neither historical nor intended to be considered historical; no such man as Job ever lived. Catholic commentators, however, almost without 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 Scriptures seem repeatedly to take this for granted (cf. Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11; Tobit 2:12-15, according to the Vulgate — in the Greek text of Tobias there is no mention of Job). All the Fathers considered Job an historical person; some of their testimonies may be found in Knabenbauer, “Zu Job” (Paris, 1886), 12-13. The Martyrology of the Latin Church mentions Job on 10 May, that of the Greek Church on 6 May (cf. Acta SS.’ II, May, 494).
R
rinnie
Guest
That is good enough for me. Again i go by the church, and that in itself was enough for me but now i also have something to confirm our belief. Thanks.
R
rinnie
Guest
What i am also learning is that there are so many different bibles. And things get lost in translation. And how you have to go by the time, words, its very interesting. But no matter what it all comes back to what i was always taught. The Church. The Roman Catholic Church. I can see why now you cant go by the bible alone. ITs just not possible. You must go by the Church and Word of God. There is so much not in the bible. But then again the scriptures themselves say to cover all the Words of God there could never be enough books. Its like the more people try to condem the Church they give us one more way to prove it right.
- Status