“(1) In general, the Church struggled not only with Job but with the entire Old Testament for the entire duration of the second century. Today, the Church simply doesn’t struggle, but rather ignores those things that remain unsettled.”
The “struggle” ended for all practical purposes, in the 2nd century, Kosta. By the 4th century, Christian theology had developed to the point where the Fathers could refer to the horrors of the OT as stories to scare the simple folk. They were right, Kosta.
The difference in interpretation of Job found in the West and the East is instructive. The monster “god” of the Book of Job is a theological ancestor of the monster “god” which demanded the bloody slaughter of the only thoroughly innocent man, its own Son, to slake its wrath against creation. That has had “interesting” results in the West, results we have never seen in the East, like the Reformation.
I think you are looking at the OT in far too Western a way, Kosta. That leads to people fearing our loving God. The Church employs and explains the OT in a Christian manner as it should be explained.
I will ponder on that, Kolo. I's one thing to say that the horror of the OT is used to scare simple folk (which is another issue of contention), and it's an altogether another to actually interpret the OT God as a loving, Christ-like God. (if there is such an OT God, then why use scare tactics?) I have yet to find patristic writings that sound positively convincing.
You know, it is interesting that the early Church Fathers did not fear questioning the OT. For instance, +Augustine wonders what were the Hebrews drinking if all the waters of Egypt turned into blood [Letter 124], or why could Pharaoh's magicians make a serpents but not gnats [The Trinity 3.7.12]!
It was mostly the West that struggled with the OT, as you suggest, as late as the 7th century. The OT is the subject of intense searches by Isidore of Seville (6-7th century), one of the Lats Latin Fathers, and of Paterius (the secretary of +Gregory the Great, 7th century).
+Cyril of Alexandria (4th century) based his entire inbterpretation of the OT on the Gospel of John and The Hebrews. By saying that we observe the Law in the spirit, rather than the flesh, he drew a parallel, although it my opinion it sounds better than it is on closer inspection. It's all not at all about the tyrant God of the OT and how this God supposedly compares to Christ. It is simply understood that the Jews "didn't see it" right because they didn't have the full revelation, so their God was somewhat "misinterpreted."
Bottom line is: the OT had to be incorporated because of the Synoptic Gospels that make reference to it. Otherwise the Gospels, the core scripture of the Church, would be making invalid references. So, a way had to be found to "conflate" the seemingly dissimilar books into one harmonized version. There was even an attempt to conflate all four Gospels into one!