Book of Job

[Immanuel Can]

In my opinion it is mythological personification.

Yes; I keep asking about this.

Why is that your opinion? What are your reasons for choosing that alternative?

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?

I'm just thinking about Job. I'm trying to unpack the narrative, and I'm looking for reasons why you rule out chapters 1-2 as having any literal significance. I'm perfectly happy to hear what those reasons are, really. I'm quite interested. No backhanded reason.

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,

Absolutely. What are those terms?

...but that does not mean we have to believe that what is being told is a historical account.

Of course not, if we have compelling reason to suppose it's myth or poetry of a non-literal kind. I'm just waiting to see what the compelling reasons for choosing the latter over any literal referents might be...

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.

Well, this is a different issue. But the term "Son" is positional, not temporal; for which reason, Christians speak of Christ as "the Eternal Son."

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?

No: because "hide one's face" is a commonly-recognized idiom for "not speaking to," or "not communicating with." But that's certainly not obviously the case in the first two chapters of Job as a whole -- there's not a two-chapter-long idiom being reeled out there -- or if we suppose there is, we'd have to give compelling reasons why we think that's so, because normal idioms are much shorter and less detailed than the account in Job 1 and 2.

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.

It's not an equivalent presupposition, though. Normative reading is to take text for what it says, unless reason can be shown that sufficiently counts against the taking of it that way.

I grant the presence of the "there was a man" formulation at the start. Good point. But as I have said earlier, there's absolutely nothing that makes the allegorical and literal an either-or proposition; a history can have a kind of traditional, legendary start, and still be actual history. We'd have to decide on more than that, I would say. Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that the Trojan War never happened, because Homer wrote about it in traditional poet's language. That would seem capricious, would it not?

I am not going to get into a discussion of the resurrection

That's unfortunate, perhaps. Because nothing is more central to Christianity than the reality of the Resurrection, which was (if we believe the multiple historical record at all) prophesied by Jesus Christ Himself, affirmed by later witnesses and the disciples, and explained as essential to the Christian faith by the greatest exponent of that faith, the Apostle Paul. We can certainly say that someone who shares that belief does have the right to call themselves "Christian": but that's not such an easy claim to defend for anyone who does not believe in the Resurrection as a literal event. The whole history of Christianity is against them on that, of course.

But we're dealing with Job at the moment. It's clear that the Resurrection is a singularly poor example to call into question by way of analogy, to argue that Job can't be literal. Everybody who's anybody in the Christian world takes the Resurrection to be the literal-and-allegorically-significant event par excellence in human history.

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.

Right. That's a major theme of Job: adversity per se is not evil, nor is it a signal of the judgment of God against someone. But that would create a problem for your Adversary-adversity theory, because the Satan is certainly depicted as evil, no? So how could he and "adversity" be one and the same, even mythically speaking, without also implying that adversity WAS a kind of evil? After all, you've made them mythically identical there.

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.

Then I won't try to do so. But if you read to the end of the book, he dies happy and blessed -- as it says, "an old man, and full of days." One thing for sure that the Book of Job teaches: you learn more about God through your suffering, and through taking the right attitude to it, then you will ever learn by being rich and comfortable. And if the knowledge of God turns out to be the most important thing in the universe, then what would one not wisely give up to have more of it?

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?

Oh, I wouldn't argue with the possibility of two readings of the word. Do we not have a word like "bow," which can mean "the front of a ship," or "a gesture of respect," or "a manner of tying ribbon," or "a weapon," among other things? Context is the determiner of how we ought to read a given word, even in English. The issue is what is the right way to understand the particular use in reference to Job's circumstances (adversity?) and to the Adversary.

You can re-imagine Job as merely a story about "adversity." But if you do, then it has nothing at all to say about evil, since adversity is actually not inherently evil at all.

May I suggest that you'll get more traction from de-coupling the idea of "evil" from the idea of "adversity"? After all, "adversity" is merely a state of affairs, of "things being contrary." But "evil" is a value judgment that may or may not be applied justly to given cases. Thus there could be such a thing as "good adversity" (as in an athletic achievement) and "evil adversity." Certainly one thing Job does not teach is that we are to regard adversity itself as inherently and always evil.

[-1-]

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.

Human writing developed only in the seventh century BC. Prior to that, there were the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Some really cream this into the face of those who believe that the ten commandments were carved in stone by some means right in front of Moses: there were no alphabets then at all yet.

I don't know when the book of Job was written. But I bet my uncle's false teeth it was not written in 2000 BC.

Does not look good on bible.org

[fooloso4]

Immanuel Can:

Why is that your opinion? What are your reasons for choosing that alternative?

If you think that this is an historical account of God who is a physical being who has sons and converses with a physical being who walks the earth as the adversary I don’t that anything I can say will persuade you otherwise.

I'm just thinking about Job.

If you do not think the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally then whatever reasons you have would probably apply to Job as well. If you do think it is a literal account of what happened then we see things in a fundamentally different way.

Well, this is a different issue. But the term "Son" is positional, not temporal …

No, its the same issue, whether the story should be read literally. The story says “one day”, that is temporal. The story says sons, not Son. I see no reason to impose a foreign religious belief that develops centuries later on the story.

No: because "hide one's face" is a commonly-recognized idiom

It may be but it literally means one has a face and is hiding it. You seem to want to have it both ways.

Normative reading is to take text for what it says, unless reason can be shown that sufficiently counts against the taking of it that way.

A normative reading is based on what the norm is. The norm for reading mythology is not the same as the norm for reading history.

That's unfortunate, perhaps. Because nothing is more central to Christianity than the reality of the Resurrection …

Unfortunate perhaps if you want to discuss Christianity but we are discussing the book of Job. It is a Christian bias to think the Hebrew Bible can or should be read in light of the New Testament.

It's clear that the Resurrection is a singularly poor example to call into question by way of analogy, to argue that Job can't be literal.

But that is not what I said. What I said is that some Jews see the story of Exodus as just a story and some Christians see the resurrection as just a story.

Everybody who's anybody in the Christian world takes the Resurrection to be the literal-and-allegorically-significant event par excellence in human history.

I am not going to enter into that well worn argument. Scholars such as Elaine Pagels finds inspiration in non-canonical gospels such as the gospel of Thomas, but perhaps you see her as nobody.

But that would create a problem for your Adversary-adversity theory, because the Satan is certainly depicted as evil, no? So how could he and "adversity" be one and the same.

You are assuming the very thing I have called into question, the adversary is not a he. What I said is that the adversary may be a poetic personification of adversity, that is, ra’ or evil. A personification of something is not the thing personified.

Then I won't try to do so. But if you read to the end of the book, he dies happy and blessed -- as it says, "an old man, and full of days."

There are many scholars who see this happy ending as a later addition. Either way if you were afflicted as Job was would you conclude it was the best thing for you? Would a new family make up for the one you lost? Would the pain and suffering have been to your benefit?

One thing for sure that the Book of Job teaches: you learn more about God through your suffering …

What did Job learn about God through his suffering? That God was not his shield? That God did not comfort him? That goodness and mercy did not follow him all his days?

You can re-imagine Job as merely a story about "adversity." But if you do, then it has nothing at all to say about evil, since adversity is actually not inherently evil at all.

One last time, adversity is one of the terms that translates ra’. Evil is another. When talking about foreign words it is best to give some sense of the extent of the term that are not covered by other words that are used to translate it. I chose the term adversity because of the root connection with adversary - adverse, to stand against or oppose. The Hebrew term ra’ has connotations not covered by evil and evil has a history of meaning that ra’ does not. The adversary opposes, adversity is opposition.

If you claim that a) what happened to Job was evil and b) it was the best thing for him, then evil can be good.

May I suggest that you'll get more traction from de-coupling the idea of "evil" from the idea of "adversity"?

I just suggested you do the same. You’re spinning your wheels.

But "evil" is a value judgment that may or may not be applied justly to given cases.

That is anachronistic. Value judgment is a modern concept. When the text says that Job turned away from evil it does not mean he turned away from what someone has judged to be evil justly or unjustly in some given case.

Thus there could be such a thing as "good adversity"

It is not the adversity that is good, it is the overcoming of the adversity that is good. If one does not overcome it then one's ambition is thwarted.

Certainly one thing Job does not teach is that we are to regard adversity itself as inherently and always evil.

Right, when adversity is used to translate ra’ it is understood to be something bad. Job’s suffering adversity was not a good thing, even though you suggested it might be the best thing for him.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can:

Why is that your opinion? What are your reasons for choosing that alternative?

If you think that this is an historical account of God who is a physical being who has sons and converses with a physical being who walks the earth as the adversary I don’t that anything I can say will persuade you otherwise.

That's your comment about me, perhaps. But it's not an answer to the question. Do you actually have one? Or is it just that you don't want to believe what you don't want to believe?

No: because "hide one's face" is a commonly-recognized idiom

It may be but it literally means one has a face and is hiding it. You seem to want to have it both ways.

Not at all. You seem to misunderstand what an idiom is. You also seem again to have the idea that one must always choose between something being literally true and it being allegorically relevant. But remember the Maginot Line, and you'll see again that it's just not true.

That's unfortunate, perhaps. Because nothing is more central to Christianity than the reality of the Resurrection …

Unfortunate perhaps if you want to discuss Christianity but we are discussing the book of Job. It is a Christian bias to think the Hebrew Bible can or should be read in light of the New Testament.

You think the Resurrection is an Old Testament incident? Check again.

But it was you, not I, who raised the case of the Resurrection in the course of the discussion. I merely pointed out that, from a Christian perspective, the Resurrection has to be a literal event, not a merely mythic representation.

What I said is that some Jews see the story of Exodus as just a story and some Christians see the resurrection as just a story.

Actually, no. If they do that, then by definition, as per Christ, the apostles and Paul, they're not actually Christians. They're something else.

Everybody who's anybody in the Christian world takes the Resurrection to be the literal-and-allegorically-significant event par excellence in human history.

Scholars such as Elaine Pagels...

Now I've got to chuckle. Yes, I know Pagels very, very well. And you're quite right: I think her "scholarship" is a bit of a mess.

You are assuming the very thing I have called into question, the adversary is not a he. What I said is that the adversary may be a poetic personification of adversity, that is, ra’ or evil. A personification of something is not the thing personified.

I'm not, actually. I'm just pointing out that you can't call adversity "evil." So on your account, adversity cannot be the "evil" of which Job speaks. But I see you aren't getting that, so perhaps we can leave it.

In fact, I guess we can leave the whole thing there.

[fooloso4]

Immanuel Can:

Or is it just that you don't want to believe what you don't want to believe?

You are right, I don’t want to believe what I don’t want to believe. If I wanted to believe what I don’t want to believe then it would not be true that I did not want to believe it. If there is good evidence or good reason to believe something I don’t want to believe then what I want to believe would not be sufficient reason to continue to believe what has become evidently false.

You seem to misunderstand what an idiom is.

If you are claiming that “hide one’s face” should be taken idiomatically then you are claiming it should not be taken literally.

You also seem again to have the idea that one must always choose between something being literally true and it being allegorically relevant.

I am not talking about “always” I am talking about this particular example. If you don’t choose then it is to be taken both idiomatically and literally. In which case God literally has a face and hides it.

You think the Resurrection is an Old Testament incident?

I said nothing of the sort. You seem confused. I was referring to Christian bias. Despite your claim that the story should be read literally you refuse to take it literally in the case of God’s sons and introduce Christ “the Son”. That is Christian bias.

But it was you, not I, who raised the case of the Resurrection in the course of the discussion.

I did not raise the Resurrection I pointed out that there are Christians who do not believe in it, that it is not a requirement for being a Christian. I did so because you claimed that “Jewish folk” see the Exodus as both literal and metaphorical and that if it were not an actual event the legitimacy of Israel is dubious. You obviously do not know much about “Jewish folk”. Again, some do and some don’t. Christianity began as a pluralistic religion, before the Church Fathers imposed orthodoxy and canonical gospels, declaring all other Christian beliefs heretical. Judaism has never had such orthodoxies.

I merely pointed out that, from a Christian perspective, the Resurrection has to be a literal event, not a merely mythic representation.

I merely pointed out that this is simply not true. There has always been more than one Christian perspective.

Now I've got to chuckle. Yes, I know Pagels very, very well. And you're quite right: I think her "scholarship" is a bit of a mess.

Great example of a circular argument. I was not going to accuse you of it before you actually closed the circle, but now you have. I point to a highly regarded scholar, somebody who is "somebody", who is a Christian who, based on her scholarship, does not believe in the Resurrection. But because she does not believe in the Resurrection you claim that she is not a Christian and not "somebody". Actual scholars of Christianity disagree about a great many things, but only polemicists and apologists would think it proper to suggest that her work is not scholarship.

I'm just pointing out that you can't call adversity "evil."

And I'm just pointing out that adversity is one of several terms used to translate ra’. Evil is the standard translation but like all translated terms it is problematic. I am not suggesting that we substitute adversity but rather that we hear this and other connotations that are found in ra' that are not found in evil and that do not lead us to think in terms of what the term evil has come to mean through Christianity. Adversity is also problematic as is misery, bad, malignant, calamity, etc. Insistence on the use of one particular English term with its own history apart from the term it translates is a way of closing off rather than opening up the text to what it is saying.

Well, you have managed to steer the discussion away from a fascinating and perplexing book.

If anyone is interested in the theodicy of the text here are a few questions it raises: Is the adversary a "son of God", a son who was adversarial, that is, is the adversary from God or apart from God or from God but now apart from or in opposition to God? Is evil from God? Are evil/adversity/bad things/misery sanctioned by God? Does God hedge the righteous, with Job being the exception meant to illustrate that the adversary was wrong with regard to the root of righteousness?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can:

Or is it just that you don't want to believe what you don't want to believe?

You are right, I don’t want to believe what I don’t want to believe.

Commendable honesty. I have no further criticism to offer.

If you are claiming that “hide one’s face” should be taken idiomatically then you are claiming it should not be taken literally.

Quite so. But "hide one's face" is only idiomatic, not literal; whereas "Maginot Line" is both literal and idiomatic. All I'm saying is that the presence of idiomatic meaning does not preclude the possibility of literal meaning as well. Fair enough?

That is Christian bias.

That would be what's called an "ad hominem tu quoque" fallacy on your part. If it were true that I were biased, that would not excuse anyone else's obvious bias, if they have one.

So you say I don't take everything in the Bible "literally," by which you mean that I'm not unaware of idioms, poetry, and metaphor. That is true: I don't understand "literally" to preclude the ability to read within genre -- to understand when something is framed as poetry or metaphor, for example. But that does not make me logically inconsistent, as your rejoinder seems to imply; rather, it means I can read within genre. And I think, on the contrary, some of us are guilty of a rather narrow, unjust kind of understanding of what "literally" means; for literality never precludes literary awareness. It only implies that unless we have compelling reasons, such as genre, to read metaphor into an incident, then when it is presented as fact we should first assume the writer meant it as fact.

Now, am I asking you to concede that the first two chapters of Job are fact? No. I'm just asking you to leave open the possibility that they may have been written with something factual in mind. And I would point out that assuming that it's merely a metaphor for "adversity" renders the story rather incoherent, because of the way it develops its themes later.

Something other than mere "adversity" must have been meant, because "adversity" isn't generally bad. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it really isn't. And if the whole story of Job is over whether or not he faces "adversity," then I think it offers us very little insight, really, compared to what it potentially offers if we look deeper.

So I'm just saying we shouldn't close our minds on such a simple, singular metaphor so quickly, if we want to understand Job.

I merely pointed out that, from a Christian perspective, the Resurrection has to be a literal event, not a merely mythic representation.

I merely pointed out that this is simply not true. There has always been more than one Christian perspective.

We'll have to disagree on that. It might look different when one takes the idea of a Christian as objectively defined, rather than merely a self-identification with no possible criteria.

But I think you're very far from the topic of Job here, so maybe, in fairness to the strand, we should steer back.

[fooloso4]

Immanuel Can:

Commendable honesty. I have no further criticism to offer.

That one went completely over your head … It has nothing to do with me or my alleged honesty but rather with the logic of your statement: If I (or anyone) wanted to believe what I (they) don’t want to believe then it would not be true that I (they) did not want to believe it.

But "hide one's face" is only idiomatic

Then you are not reading Job literally after all.

All I'm saying is that the presence of idiomatic meaning does not preclude the possibility of literal meaning as well.

We are talking about the book of Job, not "Maginot Line" or anything else. If you read some of it only idiomatically then you cannot be reading that part literally. Either/or. The very thing you have been denying.

That would be what's called an "ad hominem tu quoque" fallacy on your part. If it were true that I were biased, that would not excuse anyone else's obvious bias, if they have one.

It is not ad hominem. It has nothing to do with you and is not an excuse for some other bias. It has to do with the imposition of an anachronistic and foreign reading on the text. There is nothing in the text that would lead anyone to think that the “sons of God” means the son of God.

… to read metaphor into an incident, then when it is presented as fact we should first assume the writer meant it as fact.

It is your assumption that it is presented as fact. You seem unaware that since ancient times Job has been read as a form of mythology. Our division between fact and fiction simply did not apply. A story is a story. It tells us things that are not apparent in the facts. Who do you imagine knew about a meeting between God, his sons, and the adversary? Who was present at the time of this discussion to relay to us what happened?

I'm just asking you to leave open the possibility that they may have been written with something factual in mind.

The facts that they had in mind appear to be that even someone perfect in his ways can have evil befall him and that we cannot reconcile this with our concept of justice and that life is not fully comprehensible to us. Even the look behind the curtain does not make sense. Why would God tell the adversary to go ahead and take everything from Job but not touch him, and when this was not enough to agree to let the adversary to “get to his bones and his flesh”, to do everything short of killing him?

[Immanuel Can]

If I (or anyone) wanted to believe what I (they) don’t want to believe then it would not be true that I (they) did not want to believe it.

Sorry. Perhaps you missed the "because" in the question. I was simply asking if you had a better reason for believing what you did believe than what some people have, namely, "Because that's what I want to believe."

If you read some of it only idiomatically then you cannot be reading that part literally.

Of course, when you're only speaking of one part. But one is not forced to an either-or, when you take the text as a whole.

Take the statement, "My neighbour jumped the gun and yelled at his wife before he heard her part of the story." The first part of the statement is clearly idiomatic: but that doesn't obligate us to take the second part as some kind of idiom. Sensible reading partakes of the right strategy for the right kind of language.

And in our situation, the vexed question of the moment is, "What kind of language are we dealing with in each section of Job." Some statements we are supposed to read literally and factually, (as in "Job was covered with sores," for example) and some are obviously high-flying metaphors ("curse the day you were born," for example: nobody can actually do that).

It has to do with the imposition of an anachronistic and foreign reading on the text.

I understand that is the position you wish to take. You can take it if you wish, of course: I'm not contesting your right to do so. But you haven't said why you think rational persons are obligated to share your view, beyond that you find the opening line similar to a narrative recipe. If you've got more, I'm eager to hear about it.

The facts that they had in mind appear to be that even someone perfect in his ways can have evil befall him and that we cannot reconcile this with our concept of justice and that life is not fully comprehensible to us.

But that's what I don't understand about your position. You've said it's a story about "adversity." But "adversity" isn't always evil.

Even the look behind the curtain does not make sense. Why would God tell the adversary to go ahead and take everything from Job but not touch him, and when this was not enough to agree to let the adversary to “get to his bones and his flesh”, to do everything short of killing him?

You can't answer that question from the position or reading it as a mere metaphor, can you? It amounts to asking, "Why would the god [who doesn't exist, according to your metaphorical preference] tell the adversity (? your preferred interpretation of "the Adversary") to take everything from the non-existent character, Job [since this is only a story]...and not actually do anything to him at all [because this is only a story]."

The only way you could even ask the question in any searching way is if you were to grant (at least for the sake of argument) that Job was actually speaking of something literal about the dynamic between God and man -- which you deny, unless I misunderstand. Apart from that concession, you've got no way to frame the question; and apart from presuming to speak literally, I obviously can't answer it for you.

That's the problem with saying that everything in Job is 100% metaphorical. If it's entirely metaphorical, then it ends up meaning very little, obviously. At some level, it needs to make contact with reality, or it has nothing to say to us.

So something literal must be going on there. I wonder what you think it is.

[fooloso4]

Immanuel Can:

Sorry. Perhaps you missed the "because" in the question.

Sorry, but there is no “because” in the question as it is written. Here is the whole thing verbatim, copied and pasted:

That's your comment about me, perhaps. But it's not an answer to the question. Do you actually have one? Or is it just that you don't want to believe what you don't want to believe?

But one is not forced to an either-or, when you take the text as a whole.

Again we are not talking about the whole of a text but this text, and more specifically, the first two chapters. Once again: Who do you imagine knew about a meeting between God, his sons, and the adversary? Who was present at the time of this discussion to relay to us what happened? Or is this a part of the whole you don’t take literally?

But you haven't said why you think rational persons are obligated to share your view …

Once again: There is nothing in the text that would lead anyone to think that the “sons of God” means the son of God unless they bring that idea to the text. Where does the text itself warrant that change? My statement was that this change is anachronistic and foreign. You have a way of avoiding specifics.

You can't answer that question from the position or reading it as a mere metaphor, can you?

Metaphor and myth are not the same. On your preferred reading how do you answer the question? I have already said that on my reading the story gives us no answer. Perhaps you have found an answer elsewhere but as far as I can see the story does not offer one. As I said, we must take the story on its own terms. It does not matter if there is a God or a man named Job or the adversary (the Hebrew language does not use capital letters), we are trying to learn what the story tells us. Only then can we reflect on how this story reflects on our lives.

… unless I misunderstand.

You do. See the preceding paragraph.

If it's entirely metaphorical, then it ends up meaning very little, obviously.

An apt metaphor can tell us a great deal. Mythology can use metaphor but they are not the same. Mythology can tell us a great deal as well, provided we take it on its own terms, that is, provided we enter into the world it presents and see what we find there.

At some level, it needs to make contact with reality, or it has nothing to say to us.

At what level? At the level of an actual meeting with God and his sons in which there is the actual conversation between God and the adversary the story tells us about?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can:

Sorry. Perhaps you missed the "because" in the question.

Sorry, but there is no “because” in the question as it is written. Here is the whole thing verbatim, copied and pasted:

That's your comment about me, perhaps. But it's not an answer to the question. Do you actually have one? Or is it just that you don't want to believe what you don't want to believe?

Wow. You are a literalist. The "because" is, "is it just that." Both are a request for a reason. The reason wasn't apparently forthcoming.

Okay. Well, I think the view that makes "adversity" the meaning in Job isn't very probable. You think it is. I don't know that there's a next stage to the discussion, is there?

[fooloso4]

Immanuel Can:

Well, I think the view that makes "adversity" the meaning in Job isn't very probable. You think it is. I don't know that there's a next stage to the discussion, is there?

Not as long as you refuse to answer the questions I posed to you several times.

You initially said:

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.

But then went on post after post arguing that adversity and evil are not interchangeable terms, knowing full well that I was talking about Job’s adversity, not how the term might be used elsewhere, and that in this case it is not something different than the evil that befell him. It seems to have been nothing more than a smokescreen to avoid talking specifics about how the story is to be understood, as you claimed, literally.

So, no there is not going to be a next stage.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can:
But then went on post after post arguing that adversity and evil are not interchangeable terms, knowing full well that I was talking about Job’s adversity,...

It wouldn't change anything, whether you were talking about Job's adversity specifically, or everybody else's (presumably by way of metaphor, with Job not being an actual person). The logical problem you would face in either case is that you would have to show that the "bad" things, the "adversity" faced by Job (or by all of us) was actually a "bad" (or "evil") thing.

I've been suggestion that that is not an easy case to make. Adversity can produce very good outcomes. So if the whole story were actually just about "adversity," whether Job's or ours, it would not amount to anything very revealing. It will simply be a long rehearsal of the axiom, "Stuff happens, and nobody can say why."

And that would hardly be worth the time, right?

I'm sorry you think I'm being evasive. I'm not: I'm trying to get to the real point, which, as I see it, is that the "adversity" explanation just doesn't really work -- or work for anything worth having, anyway -- when one tries to plug it into the general narrative of Job.

[fooloso4]

Immanuel Can:

The logical problem you would face in either case is that you would have to show that the "bad" things, the "adversity" faced by Job (or by all of us) was actually a "bad" (or "evil") thing.

It is not necessary to show that “bad” or “evil” or “adversity” is actually a “bad” or “evil” or “adversity” thing. Is bad good? Is evil good? You made a tenuous case that adversity can be good, but that does not apply in Job’s case, and does not apply in any case if the adversity is not overcome. It is not the adversity itself that is good but the overcoming of it.

Adversity can produce very good outcomes.

So you have said but when I asked you what were the very good outcomes of Job’s adversity you fell silent. It was not the kind of adversity that could be overcome. It crushed him.

So if the whole story were actually just about "adversity," whether Job's or ours …

The whole story is about Job’s adversity, not the kind of adversity that can be overcome. You are quibbling about the use of a term. Any English term you choose to translate the Hebrew can be problematic, even evil. We can overcome certain evils. Citing one of those examples we might say that if the whole story were actually just about "evil" then he could have just gotten over it and the whole story would be trivial, that the "evil" explanation just doesn't work.

It will simply be a long rehearsal of the axiom, "Stuff happens, and nobody can say why."

And why did the evil that happened to Job happen?

I'm sorry you think I'm being evasive. I'm not: I'm trying to get to the real point, which, as I see it, is that the "adversity" explanation just doesn't really work -- or work for anything worth having, anyway -- when one tries to plug it into the general narrative of Job.

And yet you said:

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.

So, “the ‘adversity’ explanation just doesn’t work” but "‘adversity’ certainly does ensue for Job” and “becomes the central concern”.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can:

The logical problem you would face in either case is that you would have to show that the "bad" things, the "adversity" faced by Job (or by all of us) was actually a "bad" (or "evil") thing.

It is not necessary to show that “bad” or “evil” or “adversity” is actually a “bad” or “evil” or “adversity” thing.

Actually, it is. It's called "legitimation," and every Ethicist or proponent of a political solution is obligated to do it -- that is, if he expects that other people will be rationally compelled to agree with him.

"Evil" and "bad" are value terms. "Adversity" is not: it's merely a descriptor of the relative relationship between somebody's personal intentions and the disposition of the physical world around him to either allow or prove resistant to his intentions. Value terms need rational legitimation, mere descriptors of facts do not. (See David Hume on this, for more).

You made a tenuous case that adversity can be good, but that does not apply in Job’s case,

Doesn't it? The Author seems to want us to understand that it does. It makes Job himself much more self-aware, more humble, and more realistic about the true relationship between himself and the divine. That he is "restored" and prospers until death is a small matter by comparison to the surpassing value of the knowledge Job gained. At least, that's how the narrative invites us to read. We're not to see his "adversities" massive though they are, as ultimately crushing to Job, but rather as the gateway to his deeper enlightenment.

Adversity can produce very good outcomes.

So you have said but when I asked you what were the very good outcomes of Job’s adversity you fell silent.

As above? Hardly silent.

It was not the kind of adversity that could be overcome. It crushed him.

As above: not so.

It will simply be a long rehearsal of the axiom, "Stuff happens, and nobody can say why."

And why did the evil that happened to Job happen?

As above.

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.

So, “the ‘adversity’ explanation just doesn’t work” but "‘adversity’ certainly does ensue for Job” and “becomes the central concern”.

Yes. Quite so. And the reason is important.

The part that simply doesn't work is the replacing of the concept of an evil origination of this particular "adversity" with just a blank placeholder like "general human adversity." For something so value-neutral, so merely factual as "adversity" cannot be known to be "evil" at all! In fact, in a world without God, "evil" means nothing more than "I don't like..." And that's a pretty pallid, pasty and weak conception of evil, one that a person can hardly find reason to protest. After all, a lot of us "don't like" different things; but that hardly justifies value-judgments like "bad" and "evil," does it? So that reading trivializes the entire text...there's simply not enough evidence that "adversity" is always a bad thing.

But if, as in this case, the particular KIND of adversity that is being spoken of is an unjust persecution of a "good" man by an "evil" Adversary, then the "adversity" in question is clearly marked as morally undeserved; and this lets us understand the whole story of Job as not merely the struggle of a man against "stuff he doesn't like," but the genuine paradox of a righteous man undergoing persecution by evil forces. And it's quite stunning that the Bible will admit the existence of this paradox, and deal with it in such a profound way as it is dealt with in Job. It certainly shows that God is not afraid of the real question people want to ask about injustice and evil.

And that, in fact, is exactly what people mean when they ask, "If God exists, how could He allow X?" They want to ask, "How can a good God allow things to happen which are not merely adverse to us, but are painful, horrid, unjust, excessive and overwhelming?" That's a really good question, and it deserves all the respect the Bible gives to it in Job.

If X were merely "adversity," then their question is merely petulant and trivial; they're complaining that things aren't going as they'd like. But if X is identifiably undeserved suffering of the good at the hands of the bad, then suddenly the question is profound, and has to be taken seriously. And Job itself becomes a much more important book on that account than on any merely neutral "adversity" account.

[fooloso4]

Immanuel Can:

Actually, it is. It's called "legitimation," and every Ethicist or proponent of a political solution is obligated to do it -- that is, if he expects that other people will be rationally compelled to agree with him.

In that case the author of the book of Job must provide legitimation for describing what happened to Job as “ra’”.

"Evil" and "bad" are value terms. "Adversity" is not:

This has become tedious:

Adversity: In the Revised Version (British and American) exclusively an Old Testament term, expressing the various forms of distress and evil conveyed by four Hebrew words: tsela`, "a halting" or "fall"; tsarah, "straits" "distress," "affliction"; tsar, "straitness," "affliction"; ra`, "bad," "evil," "harmful." These words cover the whole range of misfortunes caused by enemies, poverty, sorrow and trouble. (emphasis added) (https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/adversity/)

This should put it to rest, but probably not. You will continue to argue against the meaning of the term that was clearly not meant.

You made a tenuous case that adversity can be good, but that does not apply in Job’s case,

Doesn't it? The Author seems to want us to understand that it does.

You accept that the text is about Job’s adversity then reject it because adversity can be good not evil, but now you are arguing that what the author wants us to understand is that adversity can good. If adversity is not evil then where does evil come into the picture? You are in the position of claiming that the story is not about evil or that evil is good.

It makes Job himself much more self-aware, more humble, and more realistic about the true relationship between himself and the divine.

Any textual evidence to back up these claims? Where are we told he lacked then gained self-awareness or was not but became more humble? The closest we find is when he apologizes for questioning God, but clearly he was pushed to this point. He was a simple, God fearing man, that is, a man who would not have questioned God. More importantly, what is the true relationship between himself and the divine that he learns? Whatever Job learns it was not a lesson taught by the adversary and was not the result of the adversity or evil he faced. What he learned he learned directly from God. What he learned was that he could not comprehend God or what happens in the world. Are these things he thought he knew, or as a simple man did he not raise such questions?

We're not to see his "adversities" massive though they are, as ultimately crushing to Job …

He cursed the day he was born. He did not overcome his adversity he endured it. All that he had that was taken away from him was not recovered by him. He did not heal himself. He would have continued to suffer pain and loss until he died.

The part that simply doesn't work is the replacing of the concept of an evil origination of this particular "adversity" with just a blank placeholder like "general human adversity."

It is clear that the evil Job endured was at the hands of this adversary, but that does not mean that all evil is at the hands of this adversary. You claimed:

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."

And that adversity:

… is a more important overall theme than the specific identity of the one who precipitated the whole thing, named "the Satan."

But now you say adversity does not work because it does not address what you had said was a less important theme “the Satan”. When I pointed to two commentaries that denied that the satan was a name for a particular being or entity you dropped it. It is your assumption that the adversary names “one greater adversary, one accuser of everyone”. There is nothing in the text to support that assumption. It is not that I replaced the satan with a satan, but that you imposed your version of Satan on the text. You have misunderstood the use of the definite article. From the article I posted earlier:

The most recent translations printed by the Jewish Publication Society rightly avoid rendering ha-satan by the proper name, Satan.

Unlike the modern Satan, this adversary is not represented as an independent evil being, but rather names a variety of opposing forces.

You of course may disagree, but unless you have textual evidence to support your claim you have nothing to stand on when you assert that I have replaced a modern meaning with an ancient one in an ancient text.

So that reading trivializes the entire text …

The only thing trivial here is your taking a different sense of adversity, one that does not fit, and then arguing that it does not fit.

… there's simply not enough evidence that "adversity" is always a bad thing.

And based on your argument the evil that befell Job is a good thing since you allege he learned from it.

But if, as in this case, the particular KIND of adversity that is being spoken of is an unjust persecution of a "good" man by an "evil" Adversary, then the "adversity" in question is clearly marked as morally undeserved; and this lets us understand the whole story of Job as not merely the struggle of a man against "stuff he doesn't like," but the genuine paradox of a righteous man undergoing persecution by evil forces.

You are getting closer, but it is not just the problem of a righteous man undergoing persecution by evil forces but the problem of why a just God, a moral God would allow it. God did, after all, tell the adversary to do what he will to Job to see if he would remain righteous.

And that, in fact, is exactly what people mean when they ask, "If God exists, how could He allow X?" They want to ask, "How can a good God allow things to happen which are not merely adverse to us, but are painful, horrid, unjust, excessive and overwhelming?" That's a really good question, and it deserves all the respect the Bible gives to it in Job.

It took you long enough to get to where I started:

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.

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.