but, unless i'm mistaken, and i may well be, thomas would have read job in the traditional way: job stayed "patient", never cursed god, and was rewarded at the end for remaining faithful. this is a rational view of god's activity, and more or less the wisdom tradition's view of justice, which is precisely what i would argue job was written to undermine.
i can't believe that i would claim to understand thomas better than maritain, but i also can't see thomas (or maritain, really) reading job the way i do. you're clearly right, however, about maritain's point in that passage -- indeed, god not only doesn't need but doesn't want a theodicy. i'm alternately intrigued and left cold by maritain. i may have to go back to him afresh.
j
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:54:04 -0600, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:33:06 -0600, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > that's not the way i read job, although perhaps i read job
> > incorrectly. it's not a question of theodicy,
>
> Take another look at the passage from Maritain. That's what he is
> saying. I sort of construed Maritain as giving the Thomistic (or
> neo-Thomistic) equivalent of Jeffrey's "he's f****ing god, after all.
> why the
> > > f*** does he *need* tact?" I.e., why does he need a theodicy?
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>