The Violent Old Testament God in Sunday School Yesterday

[_huckelberry]

The question under discussion isn't whether it's intended as fiction. The question is what kind of God it portrays. The questions Job is asking are good questions, and so is his rejection of the answer offered by his friends. Insofar as the book shows that bad things can happen to good people, the message of the book is good. However, the beginning and ending of the book are seriously problematic. God basically slaughters Job's family in order to prove a point to Satan, refuses to explain himself to Job, tells Job he doesn't have any right to question God, and then gives Job prosperity as if that makes up for all the suffering and death God had arbitrarily caused. For all the book's virtues, it portrays a largely uncompassionate God.

I will try to put to together a little further response. previously you replied correctly to my comment linking your view to Jobs friends that the friends accused Job and you do not wish to do that. Clearly you hold a different view than Jobs friends. Yet you do not share Jobs view, faith or patience. You do not accuse Job you accuse God instead.

I like your point above that fiction communicates a meaning which is not erased by calling it fiction. The fictional portions of the Old Testament may be as important for communication about God as the history portions.. However fiction does not communicate by the same rules. It may use highly stylized forms and conventions. It may use exaggeration or understatement. It may use imaginary scenarios like whole families dying to represent something.

I am much inclined to see in the Satan contest a tight lipped understated reference to a much more serious conflict with all creation at stake. Within the conventions of such stories the referenced meaning does not need to be explained, the image stands in for something larger than our understanding.

If you think I am trying to turn Job into loveydovey I am not. There is threat and danger presented and the story is not suppose to make you feel all sweet. Perhaps afraid instead. The story I hear is that you have been enlisted in a cosmic battle. That is why God says to Job brace yourself. God respects Jobs courage and encourages more. Brace your self may be said to a fellow combatant or teammate. It is in that connection that it contains trust respect and love.

That may not be the only story in Job. There is perhaps a simple questioning of God. Why do you appear callous and uncaring? That question is not the same as simply believing God is indifferent to suffering. The Jews would not ask if that is what they normally believed. If God was molok there would not be a question but an invitation to imitate the cruelty. I think if a person wants to hear the default picture of God in the Old Testament read Psalms. God loves his people protects them , waters their wellbeing. God forgives failure and cleanses his people.

I agree with your observation that the Old Testament God is demanding and can be harsh. Myself I do not trust loveydovey. I want the clarity of recognized danger and courage to deal with it. That is why I see the Old Testament God as friend.

[_SteelHead]

Univeral flood and destruction of Jericho are not historical. Some of the others are too small scale to be amenable to archaeology. David's conquerings are up in the air, investigation into 10th century Israel is currently the focus of intense research and debate. If you asked me a couple of years ago I would have said unhistorical. But, the evidence is trending in the other direction now. I don't see this as causing much of a problem because the stories seem to make clear that there are lots of territorial and political considerations involved. Not that that makes killing o.k., but the realities of politics and having aggressive neighbors sometimes makes war inevitable. The Egyptian story probably didn't happen, at least not on the massive scale as portrayed in Exodus. In any case, I would think that some amount of butt-kicking in exchange for freedom from slavery is more of a quid pro quo, rather than a serious problem for God's justice. The she bear incident obviously happened as this amazingly accurate historical re-enactment makes clear:

Essentially gutting the pentateuch and by logical dependency the Old Testament with significant attrition to the New Testament.

[_huckelberry]

Univeral flood and destruction of Jericho are not historical. Some of the others are too small scale to be amenable to archaeology. David's conquerings are up in the air, investigation into 10th century Israel is currently the focus of intense research and debate. If you asked me a couple of years ago I would have said unhistorical. But, the evidence is trending in the other direction now. I don't see this as causing much of a problem because the stories seem to make clear that there are lots of territorial and political considerations involved. Not that that makes killing o.k., but the realities of politics and having aggressive neighbors sometimes makes war inevitable. The Egyptian story probably didn't happen, at least not on the massive scale as portrayed in Exodus. In any case, I would think that some amount of butt-kicking in exchange for freedom from slavery is more of a quid pro quo, rather than a serious problem for God's justice. The she bear incident obviously happened as this amazingly accurate historical re-enactment makes clear:

Essentially gutting the pentateuch and by logical dependency the Old Testament with significant attrition to the New Testament.

I probably overreact to Your comment SteelHead. I think something along the line of absurd exagguration. Some stories you grew up thinking literal history turn out to be folklore dressed in imagination. They are a small portion of a rich book.

Yet I think you are pointing to a valid and interesting question, How does seeing the fiction effect the value and meaning of the whole?

I first started to see into the Old Testament in ways I found more meaningful by seeing the version of the start of Israel found in Judges through Samuel. For me that seriously qualifies the place of Joshua for me. I found myself founding my sense of Old Testament faith on Psalms. I found myself thinking much of the religion starts in First Kings.

Well that leaves the whole Exodus story in an odd uncertainty. It is obvious the scale at least is seriously exaggerated. One might even see clues to that in some images left in the story. I think Exodus story has been recreated to be a pilgrimage
in which all Israel participates.That means all Jews now and then. That would be why it is written big instead of realistically.

I think the story of Exodus presents a meaning which is foundational to the Bible . I find it difficult to think there is no actual events behind the story. I see no way to recover the specifics behind the recreated parable we have in the Bible.

How much doubt about the veracity of God should this create? If you think it is the big miracles the show God exists then I suppose the foundation of the Bible is gutted. If on the other hand there is a faith before and after such stories the parables remain illustrations of value and the existence of fiction in the book does not detract.