In article , Robert Sutherland
says...
>
>
>
>Matthew Johnson:

>1. You write: "I do NOT see "God is the author of evil (undeserved or
>any other) in these verses. I do see the innocence and even very great
>righteousness of Job in them. I even see the undeserved evil. But NOT
>"God the author". It was Satan who was the _author_ of the evils Job
>suffered."
>
>(a) In morality and law, both and modern, we distinguish between
>principals and parties to the offence (also known as accessories). 

Who is this 'we'? I think the distinction was poor in human law, and much, much
worse when misapplied in theodicy. And if you refer to the seminal work on
Theodicy, the work of Leibniz that gave us the _word_ 'theodicy', you will find
that he agrees.

>God is not a mere observer and therefore without any legal
>involvement.  He is participant and authorizes the actions of Satan.

But as has been pointed out many times by many philosophers before, the
difference between the 'permission' of God and that of men is radical. You have
no right to treat them equally as you do here.


>(b) I neglected to mention Job 40:15,19 on the subject of God's
>authorship of evil.  Behemoth/Leviathan is a chaos monster.

That is only one interpretation of it.

>  It is a
>moral metaphor for the evil/chaos that is part of the nature of
>things.

And this too, is only one interpretation.

>  God acknowledges that he created that.

Of course. But this does not make him the author of evil either.

>2. You write: "But let's not forget where these words are placed in
>the book: they are placed immediately after Job's own defence of
>himself against the unjust accusations of Bildad, who has arrogantly
>made himself a 'helper' to the Almighty, on the false grounds that it
>is the Almighty who is attacking Job with these sufferings. So the
>real function of these words in this place is to deny the false
>accusations of Bildad -- accusations that were false both in regard to
>Job (who is innocent) and in regard to God (who is also innocent)."
>
>(a) If I understand you correctly, you are saying the Oath of
>Innocence is solely a defense against and accusation against Job's
>three friends and in particular Bildad.

You missed the last cluase "and in regard to God (who is also
innocent)" How did
you miss that? WHy should I believe you can understand Job if you can miss this
clause?


>(b) I would disagree.  I acknowledge it certainly contains that
>defense and accusation, but is primarily directed as a defense and
>accusation against God. He calls on God to answer him. (Job 31:35-37)

Of course he calls on God to answer him. But to answer _what_ to him?

>3. You write: "But claiming that God is Himself the _author_ of this
>evil would NOT be an act of great faith."
>
>(a) It didn't seem to be a problem for either Moses (Deuteronomy
>32:39) or Isaiah (Isaiah 45:7)

But you are simply mis-interpreting these passages in the same overly literal
fashion in which you mis-interpreted Job. As ST. Basil pointed out so long ago,
the point of these passages is to deny another creator. God created all things.
It is NOT to claim that God caused evil.

>
>4. You write: "Does it really now? Then why did neither the near
>native speakers of Hebrew who did the LXX, nor the Hebrew scholars who
>did the JPS translate it this way? Both use far milder expressions,
>such as: Far be it from me that I should justify you; till I die I
>will not put away mine integrity from me.(Job 27:5 JPS)"
>
>(a) You would have to ask them for a definitive answer.

It is not that easy to dismiss them. They _are_ major sources for our
understanding of the Hebrew of Job, and you are ignoring them to repeat your own
claims. That is NOT a sound or convincing procedure.

>(b) I note that Edwin Good and Walter Michel both read it in that
>stronger sense.  I do cite them on the website
>http://www.bookofjob.org They do so in part because of the clear
>parallels to the Northwest Semitic language of the Ras Shamra texts.

That is good, but it is still far from making your case. After all even some
modern scholars recognize that the so-called "clear parallels" to
NWS have been
heavily over-used in recent scholarship. See, for example the Word Commentary on
Job.

>5. You write: "And did you notice the difference between this 'demand'
>and the 'demand' of a lawsuit? Job is not demanding that God make
>right a wrong; he is _only_ demanding that God answer the question,
>"why are you doing this to me"? The difference is very important."
>
>(a) I do note the difference, and I agree with its importance.
>
>6. You write: "The Hebrew word "kuwn" there means
"established
>>with certainty".  Why, oh why, are you so certain of this? I see
>nothing in either Strong's or BDB that backs you up here."
>
>(a) I thought I indicated that all the footnotes were on the website
>http://www.bookofjob.org.
>
>(b) That particular interpretation is a direct quotation from Harris,
>R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K., Theological Wordbook of the Old
>Testament: Volume 1 (Moody, Chicago, 1980) p.433-434.

I don't trust ANYTHING from Moody press! I looked up that very same word in more
reputable theological dictionaries (VanGemeren, Jenni & Westermann) and found
NOTHING to support you.

>7. You write: "Certainly the _reader_ of Job never sees this "right to
>know" in the book, because even after reading it, we _still_ don't
>know. Nor do we see it revealed to Job, either. Instead, Job hears God
>say something quite different. Yet Job is more than content with teh
>answer he received."
>
>(a) We do know the outlines of the defense/answer. (Job 1:9-11) 
>
>(b) We don't know the details. We don't know that selfless love is the
>highest good.  It might be. We don't know that the achievement of
>selfless love cannot be achieved without undeserved evil. It might be.
>All these details require further from God than that which he gives. 
>I read Satan's trial of God in a way that precludes God from giving
>those details here and now.
>

You have not answered the question: on what grounds do you claim that this right
exists AT ALL?

>(c) Job and the reader shouldn't be satified with the answer God gives
>in his first and second speeches to Job.  They dodge the central moral
>issue.

No, they do NOT "dodge the central moral issue". On the contrary:
the Book of
Job gives the only possible answer to the question at the time. ONly with the
appearance of Christ and _Christ's_ innocent suffering can a more satisfactory
answer be given.

But unfortunately, I fear that anyone who accepts the premises and conclusion of
your book will reject Christ's answer.


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/24/05 9:33:13 PM ---