Readers Reply

006

Job’s Suffering Is Neither Justified Nor Unjustified

In David Noel Freedman’s article (“Is It Possible to Understand the Book of Job?” BR 04:02), he considers the question of the injustice of Job’s suffering. That is not the central point of the story, however.

Job can be understood, but not in terms of unjust suffering. Job tried putting the question of unjust suffering to God, but only got God to admit that he (Job) had spoken about a topic he didn’t understand.

We too speak without true understanding if we claim to be able to explain how Job’s suffering, which appears to us unjust, can be justified. One can’t deal with suffering either by believing it is just (and is thus explainable and justified), or by believing it is unjust (and so must be explained and justified).

The central point of Job is that justness and unjustness are inadequate to resolve the central mystery of humanity. I applaud Professor Freedman for pointing to mystery in the meaning of Job.

“My Thoughts Are Not Your Thoughts”

David Noel Freedman’s article, “Is It Possible to Understand the Book of Job?” BR 04:02, is a most compelling commentary on this very formidable book. Professor Freedman is to be congratulated on the success he has achieved. After such a thorough treatment of the problem, there is little left to add. It should be said, however, that God has already given us clues and warning when He said, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways” (Isaiah 55:8). Further, God tells us man’s wisdom is but foolishness to Him. Not understanding all of God’s motives in the Book of Job should not come as a surprise or frustration since all of us read and hear of events every day that we cannot understand in relation to God’s possible role in such events.

I do not believe God’s purpose in the Book of Job was to humiliate Satan or to cause undeserved suffering for Job but to teach us that God our Father and creator wants us to love Him and trust Him no matter how bitter our experiences may seem to us. He will never forsake us.

Job is a Greek-type Myth

Four hundred fifty years ago, David Noel Freedman (“Is It Possible to Understand the Book of Job?” BR 04:02) would have been burned at the stake for his statement that “the God of the Hebrew Bible is not omniscient.” It takes courage to go into print with such an opinion, and I, for one, welcome it.

Job is a variation-in-theme of the Greek myth; that is, one god-type pitted in battle with another god; and, of course, the battleground for this contest always happens to be some hapless human being.

The God whom I experience, however, doesn’t play games with people as portrayed in Job. If he did, then He is a candidate for the celestial insane asylum.

Where did the Job episode come from? From the same place myths come from: human beings.

I sense that Freedman would like to have come out and said the same thing, but I feel he’s being restrained by professionalism. I, on the other hand, gave up restraint long ago. The God of Job possesses the same traits of fickleness and insecurity as does the human psyche. Satan has all the earmarks of a sly, excellent lawyer. Job is a pseudonynm for the author after he’s been on the receiving end of life’s kicks in the teeth.

Steve Asks the Hard Question

Re “Is It Possible to Understand the Book of Job?” BR 04:02, by David Noel Freedman. I agree that as to God’s knowledge and power “there is, apparently, a self-impose limitation” and that “it was essential to his purpose that human beings be responsible for their decisions and actions.”

But as my son Steve insists, “If God 007knows that an injustice is going to happen and we accept that God has the power to change the future, but God permits the injustice to occur, then we must conclude that God is party—nay, the perpetrator Himself—to the injustice.”

The rejection of the doctrine of the foreknowledge of God in no way detracts, however, from the doctrine of the omnipotence of God; God, in His omnipotence, simply limits Himself.

Professor Freedman also states that, “To determine finally what makes human beings decide ultimate questions and offer ultimate commitments requires scrutiny and testing.” I would observe that the best must be scrutinized and tested the hardest.

Freedman is a “Fourth” Friend

Re D. N. Freedman’s job on Job (see “Is It Possible to Understand the Book of Job?” BR 04:02):

O, David, how can you believe that Yahweh is not omniscient, all knowing, and then try to sneak out with a self-imposed limitation? You sound like a fourth “friend” of Job to me.

Where Does Job End?

In the April 1988 issue of Bible Review, I read your article “Is It Possible to Understand the Book of Job?” BR 04:02.

I have a question about the reference to the Epilogue of Job 42:7–19 (“It [the Dialogue] is the bridge between the Prologue (1:1–2:10) and the Epilogue …”). The Book of Job in the Douay version only runs to verse 16. In the King James it runs to verse 17.

It’s a pleasure to work for such alert readers. Reader Hahn is correct. Of course, it should have been 42:7–17. In typesetting Professor Freedman’s manuscript, we made a typographical error.—Ed.

We’re Reversing Ourselves

I was very sorry to read that you were reducing the artwork in your magazine (“Perspective,” BR 04:01).

I was so delighted when I received my first issue, and then subsequent issues, to see the beautiful art—especially in the article on Jesus and the Transfiguration (“What Really Happened at the Transfiguration?” BR 03:03, by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor). In many of the pictures, divine inspiration shines through.

I do hope you will reconsider your decision about the artwork in your magazine.

We are hereby reversing ourselves. We will not reduce the amount of artwork in Bible Review. But please know that this represents an act of faith in our readers. Would every reader who approves of full-color reproductions of the works of the old masters in Bible Review please give a gift subscription to a friend.—Ed.

A Call for More Accuracy in Bible Pictures

The cover of your April issue shows a blond Jesus clad in sumptuous robes making a medieval gesture of blessing as He enters a Gothic-style Jerusalem. Palm trees are inaccurately depicted, as are other details. This picture with its multitudinous errors is the type of illustration that I take exception to.

I know that illustrations from the old masters are both beautiful and artistic. I am an artist myself. But first of all, I am a Bible teacher who is strongly dedicated to presenting truth and diligently weeding out error.

Comfortable old Bible translations are attractive to fundamentalists because they are not forced to re-think concepts in more modern terms. Just so, old paintings that cater to European-style Christianity (with Aryan-featured portraits of a glorified Jesus) perpetuate the errors of Docetism, anti-Semitism and hierarchical ecclesiasticism. It is time that Christian publications start striving for more accuracy in pictorial as well as textual presentations.

Letting Scripture Interpret Scripture

After much thought I have decided to renew my subscription to Bible Review for one more year. I have been quite disappointed with the lack of understanding that the majority of your authors have of the Bible. To be fair several articles were outstanding—especially the recent ones on art (“Dual Impressions—Looking for Style and Content in Christian 041Art,” BR 03:04, by Jane Dillenberger,), the new techniques of piecing the Dead Sea Scrolls together (“How to Connect Dead Sea Scroll Fragments,” BR 04:01, by Hartmut Stegemann) and the information on putting codices on computer (“Computers and the Bible,” BR 04:01, by Emanuel Tov). But for a magazine that was supposed to present the best theological insights, you are sadly lacking.

I am a layman but pursue my daily studies by letting Scripture interpret Scripture, not following a particular doctrine of having it say what I want it to say. I had hoped Bible Review would enlarge my understanding of God’s word. Instead, I usually wind up with my red pen critiquing your author’s article to the point of practically negating his work.

I learned long ago that God speaks to us through His word if we ask the Holy Spirit to do so. I can only surmise the majority of your “scholars” do not, and therefore miss the truth. I hope to see an improvement this year or it will be my last.

Dating Zoroaster

In Professor Bernhard Lang’s fine article, “Afterlife: Ancient Israel’s Changing Vision of the World Beyond,” BR 04:03, he states that the Jewish concept of bodily resurrection was borrowed from the teachings of the Persian prophet Zoroaster about 1500 B.C.

This date is hardly likely since Zoroaster, the founder of Zoroastrianism, is commonly thought to have been born c. 628 B.C. and died c. 551 B.C. (Encyclopedia Brittanica and other sources).

No doubt after the Babylonian Exile and then the Persian encounter, the Jews came in contact with Zoroastrianism and it may then have played a role in the Jewish concept of a life after death in the world to come.

Perhaps Professor Lang would care to respond on his early dating.

Bernhard Lang replies:

I am aware of the unsettled nature of the debate concerning the date of Zoroaster, the ancient Iranian prophet. The “early” (that is, mid-second millennium B.C.) date is argued in Mary Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism, II (Leiden: Brill, 1982), pp. 1ff.

Commentaries on Computer

Emanuel Tov’s article on “Computers and the Bible,” BR 04:01, is a lucid, masterful survey of a complex topic, giving us a glimpse into the future of computerized exegesis.

While interpretation per se is as yet a 044noncomputer function, readers of Bible Review will be interested to learn of projects underway that may bring it within the realm of possibility. John Hughes’s excellent book Bits, Bytes and Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1987) lists dozens of software packages which serve as computer resources for exegetical study. In addition to these, in 1986 Tischrede Software released Version 1.0 of LEXEGETE, a copyrighted electronic commmentary. The first volume covers the Gospel of Matthew, including exegetical essays on sixty pericopes, Greek/Hebrew word studies, hermeneutical analysis, homiletical notes and bibliography. Upcoming volumes will cover the rest of the Synoptics, Epistles of Paul, Johannine Literature and selected Old Testament pericopes. The goal is to make a complete library of commentaries available on disk, and, eventually, in CD-ROM media.

With so much ferment in Biblical Studies itself, as well as in computing, this is indeed an exciting time to combine the two fields!

See the review of Bits, Bytes and Biblical Studies (Bible Books).—Ed.

Praise for Propp

I like Bible Review. I particularly liked the article “Did Moses Have Horns?” BR 04:01. Not only was I unaware of the paintings and translations depicting Moses with horns but in my opinion Dr. Propp did an excellent job of presenting the differing opinions.

We Still Celebrate This Way

The interesting article by Marvin Pope on Hosanna (“Hosanna—What It Really Means,” BR 04:02) alludes to the circumambulation of the Temple altar on the festival of Sukkot and that the last day of Sukkot was called the Great Hosanna.

Pope may not be aware that the same applies today, and not only “was.” We still celebrate with a sevenfold encircling of the synagogue bima, carrying lulav and etrog.

Job’s Suffering Is Neither Justified Nor Unjustified