And Yet He Repents – On Job 42,6

Dailey, Thomas F.

doi:10.1515/zatw.1993.105.2.205

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, it can be seen in a locative sense (in, on, upon) which would make it a specific place; additionally, it could be in a referential sense (about, concerning) which would point to a symbolic figure/ritual meaning of suffering or a statement about the difficulties of life. 70 In accordance with the ambiguity of 42:6, there are other attempts to resolve the problems in the text in a way that actually illustrates its poetic indeterminacy. One example is from Charles Muenchow when he criticizes Morrow's suggestion that the ambiguity in 42:6 is intentional because, for him, any "communicative event takes place within a context of broadly shared assumptions."…”

Section: Ambiguity and The Subversion Of Silence In Job 42:6mentioning

confidence: 99%

Job's Unfinalizable Voice: An Addendum to David Burrell's Deconstructing Theodicy

Williams

2020

New Blackfriars

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern theodicies often offer definitive explanations for the unsolvable problem of human suffering. This philosophical enterprise was challenged by David B. Burrell's book, Deconstructing Theodicy: Why Job Has Nothing to Say to the Puzzle of Suffering (2008). His observations about the book of Job and the way it militates against theodical speculation are compelling, but there is a missed opportunity with his exegesis of Job 42:6. The Hebrew of Job's last words can be translated in at least five distinct (and legitimate) ways. Using this grammatical characteristic, this paper argues that the ambiguity in 42:6 creates an "unfinalizable" quality that allows sufferers to be unsilenced and participate in the meaning-making process. Situating the addendum with philosophical ruminations on theodicy, the argument turns to an exegetical section that comments on Burrell's discussion in "Denouement and Epilogue" and analyzes the Hebrew grammar of Job 42:1-6. This addendum compliments Burrell's deconstruction of theodicy, adding a further pool of resources for sufferers to remain unsilenced and narrate their own questioning of God.

show abstract

Section: Ambiguity and The Subversion Of Silence In Job 42:6mentioning

confidence: 99%

Job's Unfinalizable Voice: An Addendum to David Burrell's Deconstructing Theodicy

Williams

2020

New Blackfriars

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21.Kuyper (1959); Patrick (1976); Curtis (1979); Newell (1984); Morrow (1986); Muenchow (1989); Wolters (1990); Dailey (1993); Michel (1994); van Wolde (1994); Fox (2005). …”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On nail scissors and toothbrushes: responding to the philosophers' critiques of Historical Biblical Criticism

Brinks¹

2012

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise in interdisciplinary scholarship between philosophy and theology has produced a number of critiques of historical biblical criticism (HBC) by philosophers of religion. Some dialogue has resulted, but these critiques have gone largely unnoticed by historical critical scholars. This article argues that two such critiques of HBC, offered by Plantinga and Stump, are undermined by faulty presuppositions on the philosophers' part regarding the nature and value of HBC and misunderstandings of the nature of the ancient texts on which the discipline of HBC focuses.

show abstract

And Yet He Repents – On Job 42,6

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Job's Unfinalizable Voice: An Addendum to David Burrell's Deconstructing Theodicy

Job's Unfinalizable Voice: An Addendum to David Burrell's Deconstructing Theodicy

On nail scissors and toothbrushes: responding to the philosophers' critiques of Historical Biblical Criticism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About