Isaiah's Job was linked in a comment section, about prophesying to the masses versus the remnant. It was written for The Atlantic by Albert Jay Nock in 1936.
It's not quite true, or at any rate, I disagree with much of it. I don't have so much contempt for the masses as Nock, and I don't think intellect is quite so much a key. It is all rather elitist in tone. Yet I think it might be better than half-true, an encouragement for some who are weary, and a message not heard so very often.
It is at a minimum interesting.
5 comments:
Interesting. Unfortunately the role of prophet to the remnant is too flattering a role to resist, and we seem to be a-swamp in artists trying to be Jeremiah without the tears.
"Not SO MUCH contempt for the masses..."
nice.
Well, I was raised a New England Liberal.
He does seem to assume that the purpose of the prophet and the job of the intellectual are equal. Or highly comparable.
Still, I don't think I can disagree with his comparison between the rightly-believing people of Isaiah's day and the careful-intellectuals of the 1930s (or the current decade). Many are unable or unwilling to listen.
"Keep on hearing, but never understanding; Keep on seeing, but never perceiving." (Isaiah 6:9)
Did this describe a universal problem that manifests in many ways, or a problem specific to Isaiah's time and audience?
Quote:
"Many jobs which do not pay well are yet profoundly interesting, as, for instance, the job of research student in the sciences is said to be"
Not what I hear. :)
Post a Comment