Philosophy Now Forum

I know this is not a religious forum (sadly such forums do not take kindly to examing each bibilcal work in historical context - and other forum like this one may not have folks informed or interested in such things either) so talking about this particular work in and within itself may not be interesting to anyone here ("snake"? you still here? chime in!).

I like "job" i like its theme.

theme:

1. Job = Isrealis of 200 BC (under 200 yrs of occupation by Persians) - Job is not a person, as folks today think of the work (folks of 200 BC understood that Job was "them" - the audience hearing the work (Isaelis of 2300 yrs ago) -author of work of course also knew this being the writer of said work.

2. Job (Israelis) was tested by Satan to turn away from your God YHVH, with illness (Job got sick (sickness was viewed as evil - i.e. if one was sick then they must have sinned - "friends" of Job left him assuming he was evil since he was sick.

3. author of Job denied the concept of 2 above. i.e. sickness does not mean the one sick has crossed God and is evil. i.e author denied that Israel (Job) was being occupied for being evil.

4. sht just happens (rain falls upon the good and the bad - i.e. Job got sick because god made him sick, not because he as evil).

5. be humble - it is folly and maybe even pridful to demand for YHVH to treat Job/Israel justly if he/they have been just. things are as they are, be humble, question not God's morality/motives.

I'm an athiest BTW.

not into debating God's morality or existance.

just noting and appreciating the theme of the Book of Job (a view I agree with as a humble one and worthy).


----------------

folks today (beleivers) have no understanding that Job is Israel nor do they understand the historical context (not knowing history) of the author (a work written when Israelis were questioning their faith after 2 centuries under occupation.

2 cents

thanks

carry on

1. I interviewed my Jewish uncle who is 3439 years of age, and he agrees, he and his buddies in 200 B.C. understood that the Book of Job was an allegory, in which Job was a personal representation of Israel.

2. Job was occupied with evil, and he was preoccupied with god. Also, post-occupied, too.

3. Hence the occupation of the West bank, the East bakery, the North schaktery, and the South studios.

4. Meantime, back at the barn: there is morality, but which does not affect god, who is supposed to look like or feel like or act like or speak like Adam ("...and in His image He created him.")

7. The entire Book of Job is meaningless, because life is random, and god does not have a finger in any pie, and most certainly due to the fact that he has no scruples; he lets us be affected by random events, unclaiming responsibility, except the entire creation acts, behaves and moves according to his wish, he makes us do everything we do, makes us know everything we know, and makes us feel everything we feel.

8. Something does not jive here.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:33 am 1. Job = Isrealis of 200 BC (under 200 yrs of occupation by Persians)

Maybe. But complex allegory often operates on more than one level. I would suggest that, even if your typological allegory were right, that there would be any reason to suppose Job not to also be about the general human condition -- in fact, I would make the case that the latter is more important than the former.

2. Job (Israelis) was tested by Satan to turn away from your God YHVH,

Biblically speaking, that's just what Israel actually did. The Torah is a repetition of cycles of decline away from faithfulness, followed by punishment and return. The Golden Calf or the Sin of Peor would be just two good examples. The Babylonian Captivity is another. And in that, your allegorical interpretation becomes hard to sustain; for Job does not accuse God, nor does he abandon his faith. Israel clearly has done that, from time to time...worshipping the Baals, becoming lawless and corrupt, then being returned.

...with illness (Job got sick (sickness was viewed as evil - i.e. if one was sick then they must have sinned - "friends" of Job left him assuming he was evil since he was sick.

Yes. And this belief is similar to what anybody assumes when they think the universe owes us some kind of fairness; if that were true, then mishaps could be evidence of nothing but sin of some kind. And Job's friends accuse him of secret sins, because they can't find any more obvious ones. Their deduction is logical, if their worldview were true; unfortunately for them, it's just not.

3. author of Job denied the concept of 2 above. i.e. sickness does not mean the one sick has crossed God and is evil.

One would agree on the human level. Sickness happens to good people and bad; and so does good fortune. We don't live in a universe attended by automatic just and proportional consequences.

i.e author denied that Israel (Job) was being occupied for being evil.

If that were true, the author would be rejecting Torah. For Torah says that Israel was often judged for having done evil (Isaiah 59:2, for example) and some of this was by being dominated by less-Godly nations(see the minor prophet Habakkuk). So again, the allegory for which you hoped breaks down. The individual application still works; but the national one is in trouble, it seems to me.

Now, a caveat: I'm not saying that any other nation, in Israel's place, would have done any better; indeed, they may well have done far worse. But Torah is quite clear that Israel did not stay faithful, the way Job did. And that's a big problem for your interpretation.

4. sht just happens (rain falls upon the good and the bad - i.e. Job got sick because god made him sick, not because he as evil).

That is true, I think, and Biblical as well. But it's not because of a reason so cavalier as to say "sht happens." Rather, it's that we do not live in a universe in which good and evil outcomes are proportioned out to good and evil people in predictably equitable ways. That's far from a trivial observation (like, "sht just happens").

5. be humble - it is folly and maybe even pridful to demand for YHVH to treat Job/Israel justly if he/they have been just. things are as they are, be humble, question not God's morality/motives.

I think we can go farther with this line of thought, without failing to be humble. God does not rebuke anybody for questioning per se: only for demanding an answer according to their own tastes.

I'm an athiest BTW.

Okay. That doesn't really impinge on the question of any real-world referent (whether people generally, or Israel) for this particular story, does it? I don't know that you have to believe anything in particular to be qualified to evaluate the meaning of the allegory.

not into debating God's morality or existance.

I am. But that also needn't matter for the present purpose.

...folks today (beleivers) have no understanding that Job is Israel nor do they understand the historical context (not knowing history) of the author (a work written when Israelis were questioning their faith after 2 centuries under occupation.

Well, I think the problems inherent in that interpretation remain significant; and not for any reason of my own, but because key parts of the proposed nationalist interpretation don't seem to me to account for major parts of the Job narrative. I'd be happy to accept it, at least as one level of a multi-level interpretation, if I could make it square with the story; but I can't see it yet. Maybe you can clear up how Job can be faithful, but Torah says Israel has been regularly unfaithful.

Again, my caveat: in saying "Israel has been unfaithful," I'm not denigrating Israel more than my own nation, or than any other. I'm quite pro-Semitic, as my pseudonym implies: "Immanuel" is a Hebrew name,(עִמָּנוּאֵל)‬ found in Isaiah 7:14, and some other places. I'm just saying it's human nature NOT to be faithful, at least not for very long.

2 more cents

There are actually two separate stories involving Job, one Jewish, and one not Jewish. The Jewish one makes no reference to a bet between an alleged Satan and an alleged God.

gaffo:

Job = Isrealis of 200 BC (under 200 yrs of occupation by Persians)

We do not when the book was written. According to Bible.org closer to 2000 BC than 200 BC., but I do not think it relevant to a timeless story.

folks of 200 BC understood that Job was "them"

I think it probable that more sophisticated readers and listeners have always realized that they are being addressed. Then as now people ask why, what the reason is for what happens to them.

Immanuel Can:

But Torah is quite clear that Israel did not stay faithful, the way Job did. And that's a big problem for your interpretation.

Good point. The whole story turns on the point of Job’s character - blamelessness and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.

gaffo:

sht just happens

I don’t think it is quite so simple. The assumption, as his friends make clear, is that there must be a reason why this has happened. We know the reason and by our lights it was neither reasonable nor just for God to allow it. When Job challenges him God responds by saying that Job cannot understand. It is a matter of God’s will and God’s will cannot be understood in terms of reason and justice. Ecclesiastes is similar in this regard.

Remove God and the adversary and you get the atheist version, sht just happens. The rest remains the same. Things do not happen for a reason determined by right or wrong action, and, as Ecclesiastes says, there is no justice under the sun.

Science Fan:

There are actually two separate stories involving Job, one Jewish, and one not Jewish. The Jewish one makes no reference to a bet between an alleged Satan and an alleged God.

Where can I find a version without God or the adversary (problematically translated as Satan)?

There is a dispute about the ending. Some scholars think the “happy ending” is an addition. When it is an addition or not, I do not think that it can make up for Job’s loss and suffering.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:19 pm There are actually two separate stories involving Job, one Jewish, and one not Jewish. The Jewish one makes no reference to a bet between an alleged Satan and an alleged God.

Not a "bet," and not "between," as if mutuality were involved. It's an antagonism.

The term Satan means "accuser." It's an accusation he makes, indicting the self-interest of mankind, and alleging it is not possible for such a being to have a relationship with God. Really, the accusation is that people don't really 'love' God, but that they obey because they get the goods for doing so -- just like Job does, alleges the accuser.

It's a deal. It's a bribe. It's not love. Take that away, and Job will curse God, the accuser says.

The story is about what happens when God unchains the appearance of quid pro quo, and says, "It's not like that; as you'll find out."

But ultimately, the story's not really about that initial confrontation. It really disappears after chapter 2, and never returns. It's about the fact that in our universe, good people and good outcomes, bad people and bad outcomes, aren't chained together in the kind of way that a simple-minded sense of justice would require. There's some thing far more subtle and complicated at work, is the point.

The Jewish story does not involve any interaction between an alleged Satan and an alleged God. That's why the Jewish story makes no reference to it in discussing why bad things happen to good people. Satan has a dramatically different meaning for Christians than it does for Jews, and the Jews did not even have Satan appearing in the Adam and Eve story, the Christians changed the story by making the snake Satan. Just pointing out that when people like Gaffo use a Christian interpretation of a Jewish story, they never get it right. Ever.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:44 pm The Jewish story does not involve any interaction between an alleged Satan and an alleged God.

Apparently, the Jewish Encyclopedia does not share your opinion about that: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8692-job

Nor does Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/MAGAZINE ... -1.5434183

Nor, as I see, do the various Hebrew-English Bibles.

Maybe you'd better give us a reference to support your version of events, so we have reason to know you're right.

Immanuel Can:

Not a "bet," and not "between," as if mutuality were involved. It's an antagonism.

You are correct, there is no bet, but God does tell Satan to prove his case.

It's a deal. It's a bribe.

I can it as a deal but are you saying Satan bribes God to allow him to afflict Job? Has God put a hedge around Job as Satan accuses him of doing? (1:10) If so, why? Or it is just that Job has been fortune up until then?

The term Satan means "accuser."

The term is often translated as adversary or the adversary.

The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” (1:7) (Job

It is often assumed that the adversary is God’s adversary but in Numbers 22:21 an angel stands in the way of Balaam, who has angered God, as his adversary. In 1 Samuel 29:4 one man stands as the adversary of another (These citations are from Robert Sack’s "A Commentary on the Book of Job".)

So, the adversary wandering the earth may be a poetic way of talking about adversity. The question is, the question adversity asks: what happens to Job in the face of adversity?

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:36 pm I can it as a deal but are you saying Satan bribes God to allow him to afflict Job?

No. I'm saying that's what the accuser alleges...namely that God bribes Job, or Job wouldn't love and serve Him. He's wrong, but that's what he thinks.

Has God put a hedge around Job as Satan accuses him of doing? (1:10) If so, why? Or it is just that Job has been fortune up until then?

We aren't told. We are simply told that that is how the accuser spins it. I don't know whether or not that part is true.

The term Satan means "accuser."

The term is often translated as adversary or the adversary.

That's a reasonable synonym. But see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/satan, and see Rev. 12:10.

The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” (1:7) (Job

It is often assumed that the adversary is God’s adversary but in Numbers 22:21 an angel stands in the way of Balaam, who has angered God, as his adversary. In 1 Samuel 29:4 one man stands as the adversary of another (These citations are from Robert Sack’s "A Commentary on the Book of Job".)

But in Job, there is a definite article before "Satan," which in English we would translate "THE Satan," or "THE Accuser." There are many adversaries, of many different people; but the implication is that there is ultimately also one greater adversary, one accuser of everyone. That's "THE Satan."

So, the adversary wandering the earth may be a poetic way of talking about adversity.

I don't think "adversity" and "the adversary" are sufficiently close in meaning to allow a jump like that. You're right to suppose that they are at least rough linguistic cognates (words in the same broad syntactic grouping); they're certainly not identical, and not even close synonyms; so we can't easily substitute the one for the other without changing the linguistic import of the passage more than would be easy to warrant.

That being said, "adversity" certainly does ensue for Job, and it certainly is a more important overall theme than the specific identity of the one who precipitated the whole thing, named "the Satan." He's gone after chapter 2; but the effects, the "adversity" persists, and becomes the central concern.

Immanuel Can:

But in Job, there is a definite article before "Satan," which in English we would translate "THE Satan," or "THE Accuser." There are many adversaries, of many different people; but the implication is that there is ultimately also one greater adversary, one accuser of everyone. That's "THE Satan."

Here is another interpretation that agrees with the one from Sacks regarding the term the Satan (‘ha’ is the Hebrew prefix added to the root, meaning ‘the’):

Ha-sata the source of our modern Satan, derives from the root Sin-Tet-Nun, to act as an adversary, and thus may be translated, "the adversary. " The most recent translations printed by the Jewish Publication Society rightly avoid rendering ha-satan by the proper name, Satan. Without the definite article, Satan may be simply "an adversary." The italicized satan indicates a Hebrew accent, emphasizing that we are dealing with a key word in a foreign system of beliefs. Unlike the modern Satan, this adversary is not represented as an independent evil being, but rather names a variety of opposing forces. We learn this from the earliest occurrences of the word in Numbers 22:22 and 22:32, when God places an angel in the way of Balaam as a satan against him. This satan is an adversary or a power of opposition sent by God, and is clearly not independent of Him.
https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent ... ontext=rel

… so we can't easily substitute the one for the other without changing the linguistic import of the passage more than would be easy to warrant.

I suggested that it was poetic rather than literal.The story is a reflection on evil, that is, adversity. It is in the face of adversity that the Adversary says that Job will curse (literally, bless) God. Adversity and adversary are built on the same Latin root ‘adversus’, but the Hebrew word translated in English as adversity - ra’ (bad or evil) and adversary - satan, are two different roots. So, we are led to question the relationship between God and evil, God and the adversary, and the adversary and evil. Is the adversary one of the sons of God or did he come with them? The text yields no clear answer answers, but perhaps that is intentional given God’s rebuke to Job’s questions.

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:58 pm
I suggested that it was poetic rather than literal.

Why "rather than"? It's not an either-or, is it? A thing can be literal and have mythic or didactic weight as well. I would point to things like the Maginot Line: it was literal, but has also become a myth -- and an idiom -- for an impressive but ineffective line of defense, hasn't it?

Or take the Migration from Egypt. Jewish folks see that as both literal and metaphorical; without it, the legitimation of the origin of the nation of Israel itself is made dubious.

The story is a reflection on evil, that is, adversity

But "adversity" isn't necessarily evil. Ask the athlete who trains hard, or the woman who labours to rise to the top of a challenging profession. Adversity can be the maker of a person, actually. So I think "evil" has to be something distinct from mere "adversity."

Immanuel Can:

Why "rather than"?

Because I do not think the adversary is the name of or identifies a particular entity or being any more than that 'the reader' of this or some other post is one particular person. The adversary is whatever is adverse to, stands in opposition to, or is harmful to someone or something.

It's not an either-or, is it?

Either an entity or not? There is no definitive or final interpretation but I take it that the story is not referring to an entity THE ADVERSARY. I won’t insist that my interpretation is right, but it has its supporters.

A thing can be literal and have mythic or didactic weight as well.

Of course it can, but in this case, again, I do not think the story refers to an entity or being or force.

I would point to things like the Maginot Line …

In that case it seems clear it begins with an actual entity. In the case of the adversary that is what is in question.

Or take the Migration from Egypt. Jewish folks see that as both literal and metaphorical.

Some see it as literal and some do not. The fact that something literal can become something metaphorical begs the question of whether the adversary should be taken as a single literal entity.

… without it, the legitimation of the origin of the nation of Israel itself is made dubious.

As is the case with the story of the resurrection of Christ. Some believe that without the resurrection Christianity is false, but others do not found their faith on it.

But "adversity" isn't necessarily evil.

That is true, but adversity is one of the ways the Hebrew term ‘ra’’ is translated. A table may be said to be ra’ but that does not mean it is evil, but rather, that it is bad. Context matters. Translation is not a one to one substitution for the same word in different languages. Words carry connotations in one language for which there is no equivalent in another.

Adversity can be the maker of a person, actually.

As is true in the case with Job, but that does not mean what happened to him was not evil:

If we accept the good from God, must we not accept the evil? (Job 2:10)

So I think "evil" has to be something distinct from mere "adversity."

There are some commentators who translate “the tree of good and bad” rather than “the tree of good and evil”. In a particular context ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ or ‘adversity’ or ‘misery’ or ‘malignant’ or some other word may be preferable to the other choices.

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:58 pm

Immanuel Can: Why "rather than"?

Because I do not think the adversary is the name of or identifies a particular entity or being any more than that 'the reader' of this or some other post is one particular person. The adversary is whatever is adverse to, stands in opposition to, or is harmful to someone or something.

Except that this alleged "adversity" talks and argues with God, and in very specific terms, with definite strategies. I've never found that my own "adversities" actually argue anything...and I'm sure you haven't experienced that either.

So while you may wish to dismiss the literal level of possibility there, you've got to admit that the text favours the literal first, and your allegorical interpretation only at the second level. So I wonder if not liking the idea of an embodied force for evil is an adequate reason to bypass the surface level entirely.

It's not an either-or, is it?

Either an entity or not?

No. Either literal or not. I'm suggesting a story can be both literal and allegorically applicable.

I gave the example of the Maginot Line -- a real, historical event that is now mythologized to refer to general principles of not getting caught in overconfidence.

Of course it can, but in this case, again, I do not think the story refers to an entity or being or force.

Why is it that you think that? Is it that you have a specific reason, or that you just don't like the idea much? I just don't see the latter as an unequivocal reason to dismiss the more obvious level of text. But I'm open to hearing why it is.

Some see it as literal and some do not. The fact that something literal can become something metaphorical begs the question of whether the adversary should be taken as a single literal entity.

I'm not begging it, actually. Sorry if you got that impression. I'm just asking why we disbelieve the most obvious level of the text...and I'm genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning.

As is the case with the story of the resurrection of Christ. Some believe that without the resurrection Christianity is false, but others do not found their faith on it.

Ah, but there we have a severe problem. For the text itself argues in the clearest and most unequivocal terms that if you don't believe in a literal resurrection, your "faith is vain; you are still in your sins." In other words, it's Biblically inherent to the definition of "Christian" that one DOES believe in the literality of the Resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15).

But "adversity" isn't necessarily evil.

That is true, but adversity is one of the ways the Hebrew term ‘ra’’ is translated. A table may be said to be ra’ but that does not mean it is evil, but rather, that it is bad. Context matters. Translation is not a one to one substitution for the same word in different languages. Words carry connotations in one language for which there is no equivalent in another.

Fair enough. But adversity isn't even per se "bad." It can simply be the helpful resistance that makes one's efforts meaningful. That's a very far cry from it being "bad" or "evil" indeed.

Adversity can be the maker of a person, actually.

As is true in the case with Job, but that does not mean what happened to him was not evil:

If we accept the good from God, must we not accept the evil? (Job 2:10)

We can wonder if Job got his label right, there. After all, he may have shared his friends' cultural assumptions about adversity always signaling the disapproval of God. But even if he was correct (and if Satan was real, he certainly was right), the result for Job was ultimately good, not evil. So now we have to wonder if adversity wasn't the best thing for him, whether he knew it or not, don't we?

So I don't think we can read the Book of Job as a treatise on how evil adversity always is. That's clearly not how it is, either in the story or in real life.

Immanuel Can:

Except that this alleged "adversity" talks and argues with God, and in very specific terms, with definite strategies.

It is a matter of how literally you want to take it. In my opinion it is mythological personification.

I've never found that my own "adversities" actually argue anything...and I'm sure you haven't experienced that either.

One question the text asks is about the source of adversity. Mythology is a way of addressing such questions. Are we to conclude from the story of Adam and Eve that a tree is the source of knowledge or knowledge of good and evil? That there was a talking serpent? That there is another tree in the garden that if we could eat from it we would live forever?

So while you may wish to dismiss the literal level of possibility there, you've got to admit that the text favours the literal first, and your allegorical interpretation only at the second level.

I think the text must be addressed on its own terms, but that does not mean we have to believe that what is being told is a historical account. Mythology has its own logic and does not operate under the rules of literal accounts. I do not think the story asks us to believe that there was an actual meeting between God, the sons of God, and the Satan who may or may not have been a son of God. If we are to take sons of God literally then there must have been a female god who gave birth to sons, or parthenogenesis, or non-biological reproduction. All of which raises a whole host (pun intended) of questions.

So I wonder if not liking the idea of an embodied force for evil is an adequate reason to bypass the surface level entirely.

It is not a matter of not liking the idea. If the Satan is an embodied force then so is God and the sons of God. I take the surface level to be one of mythological personification. When Job asks God:

Why do you hide your face (13:24)

Are we to take this to mean that God is a physical being with a face and that he is hiding it from Job?

Why is it that you think that? Is it that you have a specific reason, or that you just don't like the idea much? I just don't see the latter as an unequivocal reason to dismiss the more obvious level of text. But I'm open to hearing why it is.

Because I take it to be a mythological account. Its truth is not a matter of a factual telling of events but of something we cannot see in actual events. A literal telling of events does not tell us why things happen as they do. The story begins like a fairy tale:

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and this man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God and abstained from evil.

If you wish to read it as a literal account that is up to you. We all bring our presuppositions with us.

Ah, but there we have a severe problem. For the text itself argues in the clearest and most unequivocal terms that if you don't believe in a literal resurrection, your "faith is vain; you are still in your sins."

I am not going to get into a discussion of the resurrection or whether it is to be taken literally as a physical resurrection. The gospel of Mark does not support the idea of physical resurrection. There has been a great deal written about this and I am not going to rehash it here. There is also the problem of canonical versus non-canonical gospels. In any case, there are plenty of Christians who do not base their faith on resurrection, spiritual or physical. Yes, we can find passages in the New Testament that tell them that they lack faith, but for them this may not be relevant, it may be that for them Christianity has continued to develop, just as it always has. The early Jesus movement was not about what one finds in a book but what one finds in inspiration, that is, the indwelling of spirit. The first followers of Jesus were not followers of Paul. Paul was their adversary.

We can wonder if Job got his label right, there. After all, he may have shared his friends' cultural assumptions about adversity always signaling the disapproval of God.

But calling something evil does not mean one thinks it is due to the disapproval of God. That is the question they wrestle with - does evil signal the disapproval of God? God did not disprove of his perfect servant Job, so that cannot be the source of evil.

So now we have to wonder if adversity wasn't the best thing for him, whether he knew it or not, don't we?

There is no argument that you can make to convince me that losing his family and being inflicted with terrible pain and disease was the best thing for him.

So I don't think we can read the Book of Job as a treatise on how evil adversity always is.

Adversity and evil are two ways in which the Hebrew term ra’ are translated. See Strong’s Concordance: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7451.htm. As I pointed out, the Hebrew word itself does not even always mean evil. Would you say that Job is not about evil because what is ra’ is not always evil, as with the case of the table that has a bad (ra') leg?