Lee Harmon's Blog, page 100
March 9, 2012
Hebrews 11:11, Sarah's Faith
It was by faith that even Sarah was able to have a child, though she was barren and was too old. She believed that God would keep his promise. (NLT)
//Oops! That's not the way it really happened, is it? Isn't it true that, when the messengers of God brought news that Sarah would conceive and have a child, she laughed in their face? What is Sarah doing here in Hebrews 11, the chapter known as the "honor roll of faith?"
We don't know who wrote the book of Hebrews, and we don't know why that writer chose to praise Sarah. So radical was this reinterpretation of scripture that many early manuscripts cut the sentences out of the book! Today's translations, not knowing quite what to do about it, often ignore Sarah and praise Abraham alone. The NIV reads like this, for the very same verse:
By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.
C'mon, guys, give poor Sarah a break. One hasty snicker, and her reputation is ruined forever?
//Oops! That's not the way it really happened, is it? Isn't it true that, when the messengers of God brought news that Sarah would conceive and have a child, she laughed in their face? What is Sarah doing here in Hebrews 11, the chapter known as the "honor roll of faith?"
We don't know who wrote the book of Hebrews, and we don't know why that writer chose to praise Sarah. So radical was this reinterpretation of scripture that many early manuscripts cut the sentences out of the book! Today's translations, not knowing quite what to do about it, often ignore Sarah and praise Abraham alone. The NIV reads like this, for the very same verse:
By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.
C'mon, guys, give poor Sarah a break. One hasty snicker, and her reputation is ruined forever?
March 8, 2012
Ruth 4:13: The Ancestry of King David
So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.
//Shortly after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, they began an effort at ethnic cleansing. You may recall that Ezra demanded all foreign citizens be kicked out of the city, even if they be "wives and children."
It was during this time that the book of Ruth was written, and it purports to tell a story about the ancestry of David—a rather beautiful story about a young woman named Ruth, from the land of Moab. In this story, Naomi, a Jew, had relocated to Moab because of famine in Judah. There, her son married Ruth, a Moabite. Then he died, as did Naomi's husband and other son. When the famine ended and Naomi returned to Judah, Ruth accompanied her.
Back in Judah, the Moabite Ruth won the admiration of a Jewish man named Boaz, and they eventually married. Of this union came a son named Obed, who had a son named Jesse, who had a son named David.
The moral of the story? The book of Ruth turns out to be a bit of protest literature. It identifies the Jews' great King David as a half-breed, precisely the sort of man that, hundreds of years later, the Jews were purging from Jerusalem.
//Shortly after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, they began an effort at ethnic cleansing. You may recall that Ezra demanded all foreign citizens be kicked out of the city, even if they be "wives and children."
It was during this time that the book of Ruth was written, and it purports to tell a story about the ancestry of David—a rather beautiful story about a young woman named Ruth, from the land of Moab. In this story, Naomi, a Jew, had relocated to Moab because of famine in Judah. There, her son married Ruth, a Moabite. Then he died, as did Naomi's husband and other son. When the famine ended and Naomi returned to Judah, Ruth accompanied her.
Back in Judah, the Moabite Ruth won the admiration of a Jewish man named Boaz, and they eventually married. Of this union came a son named Obed, who had a son named Jesse, who had a son named David.
The moral of the story? The book of Ruth turns out to be a bit of protest literature. It identifies the Jews' great King David as a half-breed, precisely the sort of man that, hundreds of years later, the Jews were purging from Jerusalem.
March 7, 2012
Book review: Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time
by Marcus J. Borg
★★★★★
I read this little book several years back, and wanted to make sure it isn't forgotten. Marcus Borg is one of my favorite writers, and this is what I've always considered his "coming out" book. The one that lays bare Borg's understanding of the historical Jesus, and Borg's journey from blind belief into a more complete, contemporary appreciation for Jesus and what his message means for mankind today. In this book is a Christianity for the 21st century and a Jesus who can be embraced by everyone.
One quote sums up the book well: Borg describes Jesus as a "spirit person, subversive sage, social prophet, and movement founder who invited his followers and hearers into a transforming relationship with the same Spirit that he himself knew, and into a community whose social vision was shaped by the core value of compassion." I'm uncertain if Borg would use precisely the same words today, sixteen years later, because the wheels of Jesus scholarship continue to turn, but I'll bet he wouldn't change much … he has found the core Jesus. Meeting Jesus again for the first time, we are invited to appreciate Jesus' beauty against a backdrop of dominating religion, and share in Jesus' struggle to help compassion overcome purity. It was this very purity system of the Jews which led to social injustice, and which Jesus found most constricting.
This is one of those books everyone should read before giving up on Christianity.
★★★★★
I read this little book several years back, and wanted to make sure it isn't forgotten. Marcus Borg is one of my favorite writers, and this is what I've always considered his "coming out" book. The one that lays bare Borg's understanding of the historical Jesus, and Borg's journey from blind belief into a more complete, contemporary appreciation for Jesus and what his message means for mankind today. In this book is a Christianity for the 21st century and a Jesus who can be embraced by everyone.
One quote sums up the book well: Borg describes Jesus as a "spirit person, subversive sage, social prophet, and movement founder who invited his followers and hearers into a transforming relationship with the same Spirit that he himself knew, and into a community whose social vision was shaped by the core value of compassion." I'm uncertain if Borg would use precisely the same words today, sixteen years later, because the wheels of Jesus scholarship continue to turn, but I'll bet he wouldn't change much … he has found the core Jesus. Meeting Jesus again for the first time, we are invited to appreciate Jesus' beauty against a backdrop of dominating religion, and share in Jesus' struggle to help compassion overcome purity. It was this very purity system of the Jews which led to social injustice, and which Jesus found most constricting.
This is one of those books everyone should read before giving up on Christianity.
March 6, 2012
Revelation 20:7-8, Gog and Magog
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
//This verse always makes me chuckle. It's the funny way John of Patmos inserted an explanation for Satan's final battle, as if "Gog and Magog" tells us anything at all. It sounds more like a puppet show than a battle.
One clue that's helpful when reading Revelation: almost everything there can be found in the book of Ezekiel. In this case, John refers to a strange battle scene from Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. Here, God lures Gog (a leader) and Magog (a group of people) to attack a peaceful people (presumably Israel). Then, God sends a great earthquake, torrents of rain, hailstones, and burning sulfur on Gog and his troops and on the many nations with him. After God devours this army, the Israelites once again "dwell in their land secure and untroubled." This does sound an awful lot like Revelation, doesn't it?
Fact is, Jewish writers had already begun trying to explain the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus believed it to be a historical reference to the Scythians. John simply adds his opinion on the matter, suggesting that Ezekiel was writing about a battle yet to come.
//This verse always makes me chuckle. It's the funny way John of Patmos inserted an explanation for Satan's final battle, as if "Gog and Magog" tells us anything at all. It sounds more like a puppet show than a battle.
One clue that's helpful when reading Revelation: almost everything there can be found in the book of Ezekiel. In this case, John refers to a strange battle scene from Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. Here, God lures Gog (a leader) and Magog (a group of people) to attack a peaceful people (presumably Israel). Then, God sends a great earthquake, torrents of rain, hailstones, and burning sulfur on Gog and his troops and on the many nations with him. After God devours this army, the Israelites once again "dwell in their land secure and untroubled." This does sound an awful lot like Revelation, doesn't it?
Fact is, Jewish writers had already begun trying to explain the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus believed it to be a historical reference to the Scythians. John simply adds his opinion on the matter, suggesting that Ezekiel was writing about a battle yet to come.
March 5, 2012
Acts 1:9, Jesus Goes Up
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
//In John's Gospel, Jesus ascends to heaven at the moment of his resurrection. Mary spies him outside the tomb as he is on the way up, and Jesus' present-tense reply to Mary is quite clear: "I am ascending." In today's verse in Acts, Jesus ascends 40 days later. But both stories agree on one critical component: Jesus went up.
I've often heard disbelievers ridicule this idea, and never quite understood the ridicule. Where is Jesus now, they say? Is he still going up, or has he hit the edge of the universe? If he had waited twelve hours to ascend, would he now be on the other side of the universe? If he lived in Australia, would he have descended instead of ascended?
Yes, it's true, the story is a bit silly if you imagine a physical body floating around up there, and it's true the universe is far bigger than what Bible writers pictured. You can't escape the universe by rising through a window in the dome just beyond the clouds. But does their lack of understanding about the size and shape of the universe somehow negate the idea that Jesus went "up?" How many near-death experiencers describe their soul going sideways?
I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm simply pointing out that Jesus (and the souls of believers such as that darling little kid in Heaven is for Real) aren't flying around aimlessly; they're heading somewhere specific, and the Bible has always been clear that heaven is just next door. Not far away at all. No further away than the channelers of today find it. It could be, quite literally, just above the clouds, eh? What do we know?
//In John's Gospel, Jesus ascends to heaven at the moment of his resurrection. Mary spies him outside the tomb as he is on the way up, and Jesus' present-tense reply to Mary is quite clear: "I am ascending." In today's verse in Acts, Jesus ascends 40 days later. But both stories agree on one critical component: Jesus went up.
I've often heard disbelievers ridicule this idea, and never quite understood the ridicule. Where is Jesus now, they say? Is he still going up, or has he hit the edge of the universe? If he had waited twelve hours to ascend, would he now be on the other side of the universe? If he lived in Australia, would he have descended instead of ascended?
Yes, it's true, the story is a bit silly if you imagine a physical body floating around up there, and it's true the universe is far bigger than what Bible writers pictured. You can't escape the universe by rising through a window in the dome just beyond the clouds. But does their lack of understanding about the size and shape of the universe somehow negate the idea that Jesus went "up?" How many near-death experiencers describe their soul going sideways?
I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm simply pointing out that Jesus (and the souls of believers such as that darling little kid in Heaven is for Real) aren't flying around aimlessly; they're heading somewhere specific, and the Bible has always been clear that heaven is just next door. Not far away at all. No further away than the channelers of today find it. It could be, quite literally, just above the clouds, eh? What do we know?
March 4, 2012
Book review: Contours of Pauline Theology
by Tom Holland
★★★★★
This is a deep, controversial look at some of the more important aspects of Paul's writings. Many scholars essentially consider Paul the founder of Christianity, recognizing his contributions in building a Gentile religion. But Holland adamantly disagrees, and points to Paul's Jewishness by addressing the dependence of Paul's theology on Hebrew Bible themes. Paul, he says, never left the religion of the Old Testament and never departed from the teachings of Jesus.
Central to Holland's thesis is the Passover and Exodus teachings, which he shows were a strong part of Jewish doctrine. Observing Jews anticipated a second exodus of some sort—though it appears there were differing ideas of what this second exodus would be like—and Holland recognizes this theme weaving its way through Paul's writings.
Holland leans on the community aspects of the Passover and Exodus themes to highlight two different ways of thinking: Individualistic, and Corporate. Consider Paul's writings about the Body of Sin. Does Paul mean our individual bodies are prone to sin, and warn about individual sinfulness, or is he concerned about community sanctification—mankind as a whole, or the Jewish nation, or the Christian community? Paul, says Holland, is speaking of the state of redeemed humanity in its relationship to Satan (Sin). A man or woman's righteousness depends upon the community to which they belong ... a very Semitic way of thinking. I can't say I'm convinced yet, but before rejecting this line of thinking out of hand, Holland's arguments are worth further study, and I hope to read over Paul's letters soon from this vantage point.
So where do Gentiles fit in? The prophets said that the Gentiles would become members of the covenant community when the New Exodus had taken place.
Paul writes that "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit." Most read this to mean God takes up residence in our individual bodies, but Holland argues it should be read in a corporate manner: the church, or community, is the temple of the Spirit. When Paul writes, "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body," Paul speaks not of an individual visiting a prostitute, but of a community frolicking with Satan.
Also in the context of the Passover/New Exodus/Community thinking, Holland addresses the meaning of baptism, redemption, justification, and the implication of Christ as the firstborn. He explains that the role of the firstborn in the Passover was vitally important to the early church, who used its imagery to describe the work of Jesus.
Holland concludes that Paul did not tamper with the Christian message; he is not responsible for leading the church to a "high Christology." Rather, the church held this view from reading the prophets long before Paul converted. Thus, when Holland examines the Colossian hymn, which many scholars believe was not penned by Paul at all, he finds it consistent with Pauline thinking in terms of Christology and the motives already discussed, and concludes that "there is therefore no need to treat the letter as anything other than a Pauline letter."
Not an easy read, but well worth the effort.
★★★★★
This is a deep, controversial look at some of the more important aspects of Paul's writings. Many scholars essentially consider Paul the founder of Christianity, recognizing his contributions in building a Gentile religion. But Holland adamantly disagrees, and points to Paul's Jewishness by addressing the dependence of Paul's theology on Hebrew Bible themes. Paul, he says, never left the religion of the Old Testament and never departed from the teachings of Jesus.
Central to Holland's thesis is the Passover and Exodus teachings, which he shows were a strong part of Jewish doctrine. Observing Jews anticipated a second exodus of some sort—though it appears there were differing ideas of what this second exodus would be like—and Holland recognizes this theme weaving its way through Paul's writings.
Holland leans on the community aspects of the Passover and Exodus themes to highlight two different ways of thinking: Individualistic, and Corporate. Consider Paul's writings about the Body of Sin. Does Paul mean our individual bodies are prone to sin, and warn about individual sinfulness, or is he concerned about community sanctification—mankind as a whole, or the Jewish nation, or the Christian community? Paul, says Holland, is speaking of the state of redeemed humanity in its relationship to Satan (Sin). A man or woman's righteousness depends upon the community to which they belong ... a very Semitic way of thinking. I can't say I'm convinced yet, but before rejecting this line of thinking out of hand, Holland's arguments are worth further study, and I hope to read over Paul's letters soon from this vantage point.
So where do Gentiles fit in? The prophets said that the Gentiles would become members of the covenant community when the New Exodus had taken place.
Paul writes that "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit." Most read this to mean God takes up residence in our individual bodies, but Holland argues it should be read in a corporate manner: the church, or community, is the temple of the Spirit. When Paul writes, "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body," Paul speaks not of an individual visiting a prostitute, but of a community frolicking with Satan.
Also in the context of the Passover/New Exodus/Community thinking, Holland addresses the meaning of baptism, redemption, justification, and the implication of Christ as the firstborn. He explains that the role of the firstborn in the Passover was vitally important to the early church, who used its imagery to describe the work of Jesus.
Holland concludes that Paul did not tamper with the Christian message; he is not responsible for leading the church to a "high Christology." Rather, the church held this view from reading the prophets long before Paul converted. Thus, when Holland examines the Colossian hymn, which many scholars believe was not penned by Paul at all, he finds it consistent with Pauline thinking in terms of Christology and the motives already discussed, and concludes that "there is therefore no need to treat the letter as anything other than a Pauline letter."
Not an easy read, but well worth the effort.
March 2, 2012
1 Samuel 16:14-15, King Saul's downfall
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.
//Most casual Bible readers imagine David to be the first king of Israel. He wasn't. Saul, Israel's first king, seems to be quite a manly sort, but he proves to be politically and religiously inept, and is superseded in time by King David. Whatever went wrong with Saul?
Today's verse may provide the answer. Immediately following a verse in which we're told the Spirit of the LORD settles upon David (verse 13), we read that it is taken away from Saul. In fact, not only is it taken, but it is replaced by an evil spirit, which begins to harass poor Saul. What we might today label as schizophrenia begins to take hold, and Saul begins to develop symptoms of paranoia. The music that used to soothe him no longer works. He behaves erratically, becomes deeply depressed, and is plagued by strange voices and visions.
David, of course, is waiting in the wings. Saul's violent outbursts and bizarre behavior causes a switch in Israel's allegiance to David, which only heightens Saul's torment. Saul loses control ... of his kingdom, his family, his mind. And David supplants him, to become Israel's second king.
//Most casual Bible readers imagine David to be the first king of Israel. He wasn't. Saul, Israel's first king, seems to be quite a manly sort, but he proves to be politically and religiously inept, and is superseded in time by King David. Whatever went wrong with Saul?
Today's verse may provide the answer. Immediately following a verse in which we're told the Spirit of the LORD settles upon David (verse 13), we read that it is taken away from Saul. In fact, not only is it taken, but it is replaced by an evil spirit, which begins to harass poor Saul. What we might today label as schizophrenia begins to take hold, and Saul begins to develop symptoms of paranoia. The music that used to soothe him no longer works. He behaves erratically, becomes deeply depressed, and is plagued by strange voices and visions.
David, of course, is waiting in the wings. Saul's violent outbursts and bizarre behavior causes a switch in Israel's allegiance to David, which only heightens Saul's torment. Saul loses control ... of his kingdom, his family, his mind. And David supplants him, to become Israel's second king.
March 1, 2012
John 10:11-13, The Hireling
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
//John's Gospel contains a beautiful, hope-filled picture of a good shepherd. It also contains a warning about a bad shepherd, referred to as the "hireling."
This passage is sometimes misunderstood to refer to the shepherding instincts and skills of the clergy. Some religions, disdaining the collection plate, even point to the word "hireling" and criticize those "shepherds" who accept a salary.
The fact is, however, this verse must be read in context, noting the source of John's theology ... not just in the Gospel of John but in the book of Revelation. The books of Ezekiel and Zechariah and Isaiah are fundamental to John's "shepherd" theology, and the most important thing to realize is that there is only one of each shepherd. "The" good shepherd, "the" bad shepherd. This displays a dichotomy that grew common in Judaic writings, particularly apocalyptic writings such as passages found in these O.T. books. There would one day come a messiah, who would battle an antichrist. There would one day come a good shepherd, who would oppose an evil shepherd. Nowhere is this more clear than in the book of Zechariah.
John's stance is simple and exciting: We've found one of the two! The good shepherd has been discovered! It's Jesus! John doesn't name the bad shepherd. His point in bringing up Jesus' evil twin seems to be merely to highlight the contrast: "See, Jesus is the one we're waiting for to be the good shepherd, because he hangs in there to the very end, even dying for his flock."
So, while I agree with the concern that clergy need to be good shepherds instead of "hirelings," this was never a scriptural command.
//John's Gospel contains a beautiful, hope-filled picture of a good shepherd. It also contains a warning about a bad shepherd, referred to as the "hireling."
This passage is sometimes misunderstood to refer to the shepherding instincts and skills of the clergy. Some religions, disdaining the collection plate, even point to the word "hireling" and criticize those "shepherds" who accept a salary.
The fact is, however, this verse must be read in context, noting the source of John's theology ... not just in the Gospel of John but in the book of Revelation. The books of Ezekiel and Zechariah and Isaiah are fundamental to John's "shepherd" theology, and the most important thing to realize is that there is only one of each shepherd. "The" good shepherd, "the" bad shepherd. This displays a dichotomy that grew common in Judaic writings, particularly apocalyptic writings such as passages found in these O.T. books. There would one day come a messiah, who would battle an antichrist. There would one day come a good shepherd, who would oppose an evil shepherd. Nowhere is this more clear than in the book of Zechariah.
John's stance is simple and exciting: We've found one of the two! The good shepherd has been discovered! It's Jesus! John doesn't name the bad shepherd. His point in bringing up Jesus' evil twin seems to be merely to highlight the contrast: "See, Jesus is the one we're waiting for to be the good shepherd, because he hangs in there to the very end, even dying for his flock."
So, while I agree with the concern that clergy need to be good shepherds instead of "hirelings," this was never a scriptural command.
February 29, 2012
Book review: In That Day Teachings
by Robert Burke
★★★
Once in a while, I agree to review a book which turns out to be a bit more pointed than I expected, and doesn't really jell with the universalistic atmosphere of my blog. My response is usually to provide a "non-rating" of three stars, make it clear to readers that I avoid endorsing any particular set of beliefs, and offer a short description of the product without taking a stance. Such is the case with Robert Burke's collections of In That Day poetry and essays.
Robert has amassed an impressive collection of nine books that read a bit like a writer's journal. He has obviously poured his heart into this work. Book one is a preliminary introduction; book two contains "heavy doctrine and sharp criticism of the current dysfunction worldwide church;" and books three through nine are inspirational and instructive poetry. I was given books one and three for review.
Best, perhaps, to let Robert describe his poetry in his own words:
What is In That Day? It's God's biblical time of uplifting denouement. It's His period on the end of His sentence. No, it is not the end-of-days. Nor is it that crazy notion some call rapture. It is simply His day when he can tolerate stupefied Christians no more! He wants a greater mind-meld with us, His creation. And by God, He will get what He wants!
★★★
Once in a while, I agree to review a book which turns out to be a bit more pointed than I expected, and doesn't really jell with the universalistic atmosphere of my blog. My response is usually to provide a "non-rating" of three stars, make it clear to readers that I avoid endorsing any particular set of beliefs, and offer a short description of the product without taking a stance. Such is the case with Robert Burke's collections of In That Day poetry and essays.
Robert has amassed an impressive collection of nine books that read a bit like a writer's journal. He has obviously poured his heart into this work. Book one is a preliminary introduction; book two contains "heavy doctrine and sharp criticism of the current dysfunction worldwide church;" and books three through nine are inspirational and instructive poetry. I was given books one and three for review.
Best, perhaps, to let Robert describe his poetry in his own words:
What is In That Day? It's God's biblical time of uplifting denouement. It's His period on the end of His sentence. No, it is not the end-of-days. Nor is it that crazy notion some call rapture. It is simply His day when he can tolerate stupefied Christians no more! He wants a greater mind-meld with us, His creation. And by God, He will get what He wants!
February 28, 2012
Job 2:7, Was Job Unrighteous?
So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.
//You know the story. God brags about his servant Job's righteousness, and Satan (the accuser) sneers that if God took away all the things he gave to Job, Job wouldn't be so darn righteous. So God gives Satan free reign to torture Job.
Satan takes everything away, and when that doesn't do the trick, Satan smites Job with boils from toe to head.
The most fascinating thing about this story is that Job suffers precisely what Moses said would happen to the unrighteous.
Deuteronomy 28:35, The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.
This is unlikely to be coincidence; both passages use the same Hebrew word for "afflict" (nakah) and the description of the boils is nearly identical. Either Job's affliction draws directly from the book of Deuteronomy, or else Deuteronomy draws from Job. I'm guessing the former, though scholars continue to disagree on when Job was written, and how it came to be integrated into the Hebrew Bible. If my guess is correct, then Job is directly contradicting Moses' statement that such evils are God's punishment for unrighteousness; Job insists that bad things happen even to good people, and suggests in story that perhaps the powers in heaven are playing games with us humans.
//You know the story. God brags about his servant Job's righteousness, and Satan (the accuser) sneers that if God took away all the things he gave to Job, Job wouldn't be so darn righteous. So God gives Satan free reign to torture Job.
Satan takes everything away, and when that doesn't do the trick, Satan smites Job with boils from toe to head.
The most fascinating thing about this story is that Job suffers precisely what Moses said would happen to the unrighteous.
Deuteronomy 28:35, The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.
This is unlikely to be coincidence; both passages use the same Hebrew word for "afflict" (nakah) and the description of the boils is nearly identical. Either Job's affliction draws directly from the book of Deuteronomy, or else Deuteronomy draws from Job. I'm guessing the former, though scholars continue to disagree on when Job was written, and how it came to be integrated into the Hebrew Bible. If my guess is correct, then Job is directly contradicting Moses' statement that such evils are God's punishment for unrighteousness; Job insists that bad things happen even to good people, and suggests in story that perhaps the powers in heaven are playing games with us humans.
