Syracuse University SURFACE
Religion College of Arts and Sciences
Winter 1985
Job's Encounters with the Adversary
Ken Frieden Syracuse University
Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/rel
Part of the Religion Commons
Recommended Citation Frieden, Ken, "Job's Encounters with the Adversary" (1985). Religion. 59. https://surface.syr.edu/rel/59
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts and Sciences at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religion by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESPONSE
E(/il()I'S BI'ickman ן Ellel Steven Cohen (on leave ) TabJe of contents Edward Greenstein Annelle Harchik Lizzie Leiman ARTICLES Roberl C. Miller Gary Rubin Job's Encounters with the Adversary Nancy Sinkoff Ken Frieden . .. , . . , ... , ... ,. " .. ', ." ... ,' , , .. .. , ... , ...... ,3 Ellen Umansky "Although Job has been universally admired, hi s encounters with evil have met with diverse and often contradictory interpretations. In contrast ~ ESPONSE: A Contemporary Jewish Review, is an independentjournal to the tradition that exalts 'patient Job,' recent scholars have focused )1 ' Je\'.'ish expression . attention on the 'impatient Job' who questions divine justice." Ken Frieden suggests "that Job is essentially a book about questions and : 0034-5709) is published quarterly: Fall, Winler, I< EsrONSE (ISSN assertions, a book that leads us to consider the significance of theological Inc. Second class Srl'ing , and Summer by Jewish Educational Ventures, questioning. " rost,lge paid al New York City and additional mailing points. Subscrip in Canada; $10 tions: $8 for one year in the United States; $9 for one year The Torah as She ls Read $6 for U .S. students. Single I'o r one year outside of North America; Edward L. Greenstein ...... , , ... , , , , , , . . , , , . , , ...... 17 @ A Contemporary Jewish :opics $2, Copyright 1985 by RESPONSE: There are many ways to interpret and read the Torah. Ed Greenstein's all rights reserved. Review, approach to a composite text in the Torah is to respect "the literary unity of the text until such time as the text itself calls attention to its molecular welcomes articles, fiction, poetry, artwork, and letters . ~ ESPONSE structure. Without literary signals," he reads the text straight, allowing .llors should send manuscripts, triple-spaced, with self-addressed : ontribl "for duplication, contradictions, and ambiguity, and incorporate[s] the Ed.itorial Office: 15 E . 26t ~ Street , t QUEENS COLLEGE PRESS Vol. XIV, No. 3 Winter 1985 I)()I~ ' I'I{Y S'I()lIe )(ן 111 ')1)/' \, 1//'' /, Amos Ncul'cld , , , , , ...... , , . , . , , , , , , , . . , ...... 51 la זII,i/'(1 1/)'/1111 I() 1111' Slleklli Rachcl Adlcr , , , , , . ' , , , , , ...... , . . , . , .... , ...... , . , , , , , 52 Lille יזי} OIII '),1 / I '}/-, ~ {' I-/lI{'- II()IS ( 1943 ) d Pcnnant , , , ...... , . . . . , . , , , ...... , . 54 ר Edmul ns job'sז II/')' al Ar (//ז) a C ,1 ,)/)' /1 C;lr()lyn Light 8cll ' , , , ...... , .. , . , ...... , ...... , , 57 ' 111' (l,l(//'I)lr ~' encounters David Sparenberg .. . , . , ...... , ...... 59 with the adversary I('(/r 0 f ~'raellhe Lord Rita Poretsky , , ,., ' , ...... 60 : '-('(/(/ KEN FRIEDEN Sarah Slutsky , . . , ...... 61 J ( J~ 'I Page l זA}j{li '110111 8cyle Schaechter-Gottesman (trans. Seymour Levitan ) ...... 62 li(/d{1 Kelleged Midda ? LTHOUGH lob has been univer· 64 A Mari lyn Mohr , , , , . , ...... , ...... sally admired, his encounters with evil have met with diverse and often contradictory interpretations. In contrast to the tradition that ICTION exalts "patient Job," recent scholars have focused attention on the "impatient Job" who questions divine justice. 1 1 will suggest that 1/ Be B{lCk Job is essentially a book about questions and assertions, a book Ron Wegsman-Gueron ...... ,67 that leads us to consider the significance of theological questioning. OSS Ille O('ean 10 10lvaיז י ) Gerald M. Siegel , , ...... 69 1 :) Near rhe Beach Job raises issues of good and evi1, undeserved suffering, and Tom Friedmann, . . .. , ...... , ...... 77 God's justice. Phrased as questions: Is there a force of evil that is independent of God? Why do good people suffer? What can we Polnoye know about divine justice? But these metaphysical dotlbts are ןס ןWer('lvol ,,,) H,lrry White ...... , ...... 85 displaced by a more pragmatic question: How n1ust we act or speak in adversity? In more general terms: What is a right 1anguage ONTRIBUTORS , ...... 97 of relationship to God? The Book of Job a1so revo1ves around several key words: the OVER: Demon mask from the Godwin-Ternbach Museum co]]ection. Design by name "Job," the divine names, and "the adversal'y" (ha-sat(lll). toinctte Cohen. Photo by Otto E. Ne]son . These names denote three different beings and characters in the ןr 5 ץ OB'S ENCOUNTERS WI'fH THE ADVERSAR נ ~יN~I ו)( R'I,SI ~ e,lnings. Job's name is brew Scripture preserves a place for what is beyond images and ןey <1150 inlply <1 wider I'ange of n ר y, ~' ct tl י ))(ו , . lb. which connotes one who returns , words, the locus of divine mystery) י ןןן) , I()sc t() the Arabic word ) l. the source of our modern Satan, derives from theו lll'ns (0 God. ~ Yet dcspite his righteousness, Job finds that evil Ha-sata ) י )(ו - ns tow<1rd him, One R,lbbinic interpretation, based on the root Sin-Tet-Nun, to act as an adversary, and thus may be trans י וון) viction that everything in Scripture is significant, observes a lated, "the adversary. "4 The most recent translations printed by וו( l ) b ~ 11 association: if the middle letters of his name are reversed , the Jewish Publication Society rightly avoid rendering ha-satan by יו ve J()b (/:'yov) becomes an enemy (oyev). A chiasmus, here a crossing the proper name, Satan. Without the definite article, S(ltan may be )( Cgood and evil, corresponds to a metathesis, a transposition in simply "an adversary." The italicized satan indicates a Hebrew the lelters of Job's name : 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 ,In independent evil being, but I'ather names a , ןGood Job the Uprighl [ Ey()v ( ' ( US E '1 J b E ( Melalhesls ןח S ו.: I ןCI ) -variety of opposing forces. We learn this from the earliest occur ן'[ as nemy [ Oye 0 ו V ' rences of the word in Numbers 22:22 and 22:32, when God places C (I'ossing of good and evil (or health and sickness, wealth and an angel in the way of Balaam as a satan against him. This satan is רI'I vcrty, nearness to and distance from God) parallels a reversal in an adversary or a power of opposition sent by God, and is clearly ר)(. l isו e letters of Job's name: Aleph-Yud-Vav-Beth, approximated in not independent of Him. The evolution of satan and ha-sata וI l: nglish by e-y-o-v, becomes Aleph-Vav-YUd-Beth, approximated worth following through Samuel, Chronicles, and Zechariah, but English by o-y-e-v. This reversal makes Job, who has always would lead us too far afield . 5 וו ed toward God, appear to be an enemy of God. After he is In addition to these central themes and key words, what are רו llr ilially described as "perfect and upright" (tam v'yashar), then the essential rhetorical figures in the Book of Job? We may speak רו en God appears to treat of chiasmus, the crossing that makes the upright Job appear to be ן 11e n,lrl'ative centers on what happens wl he transformation, both experiential an enemy of God. But we must especially attend to the tensionך lob ,15 one would an enemy . 3 Ind verbal. becomes explicit when Job asks God in chapter 13 , between conflicting rhetorical modes: question and assertion. Job lerse 24: "Why do you hide your face,/And consider me your urges us to consider ways in which men approach God, sharply : nemy?" Of course, Job never actually becomes God's enemy, but contrasting Job's form of authentic doubt with his friends' dog - nusl feel that he has, for the purposes of the story. Satan, like matic statements. The technical term for questioning is "erotesis ", ;lnguage, plays tricks on us . from the Greek verb meaning "to question or inquire. "6 The trope - he name of God also undergoes diverse transformations in or rhetorical device of questioning is, as we will see, even attrib ז etragram- uted to God in the Book of Job. Whereas assertions imply aז he Book of Job: the Prologue and Epilogue employ the , llon (YHWH), while Job only once and his companions never situation of monologue in which the listener need not respond,ר ~ t'er 10 God in this way, instead speaking of El, Eloah. Elohim, and certain questions initiate a dialogue. The Book of Job passes Il(llld(li, Some scholars conclude that this is the result of compos - through various forms of questioning, and develops toward an 1- e ,luthorship, but Rabbinic tradition insists that the different Thou relation . 7 ivine names have theological significance. Job's false friends are Tropes engender tropes, and no figure of speech stands alone . aught llP in misguided assertions about God. Job, in contrast, as The rhetoric of questioning is often linked to irony, broadly defined e slrives to address God, passes through several stages on the as saying one thing and meaning another. In the Book of Job, we 'ay to God's transcendence of language. Although the Tetragram - also find quotations and misquotations, both from other works of laton has been translated as "the Lord," these four (now unpro- Near Eastern Wisdom literature and within the book.8 The situa- ounceable) letters name the ineffable God. The language of He - tion may be outlined as follows. After the righteous Job loses his (J \{1~SI)()I\SI~ JOB'S ENCOUNTERS WITH THE ADVERSARY 7 d his health, Job's companions re - The feasts are an incongruous detail for those related to the pious ר S, al רllliIJI'cn, his possessiol alic theology and Job. How does he react to their threat to piety? Job keeps his רן I)nJ 10 him by compollnJing Ihc el'l'ors of dogl ך! S :Job, on Ihe olher h ..lnu, is a pl'obing questioner , distance fl'om their parties and does not question what they do , ר I~ I'!)I'CI'llioI ו isiI ווI Rather than confront them, he seems to turn his back on evil and powcl'j'ul in his questioning Ihal he enters into relationship with וSl ]( l)d, The difl'crences bctween Job anu his false friends are evident privately express suspicions. This development gives a new sense thc 1,lnguage of Iheir debale , to the phrase which describes Job as one who "turned away from ו il evil." We need not say that Job's actions are blameworthy, but that II he almost too readily resorts to a ritual act of purification, without entering into a dialogue with his children. The turn away from evil Now we can better understand Job's encounters with the conceals problems that were not immediately apparent. ;lllvel's'II'Y . We clearly cannol attempt a comprehensive discussion A parallel scene in heaven immediately follows: Jl)b, but only a close reading of a few central passages. The book יו(I S at an indefinite time and place : Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present ר CI (!ו1 themselves before God [YHWHj, and the adversary [ha-satanj also came '1'llCl'c was a n1 \' t:ISC of the Prologue! Does this make Job an inspired text? An 22), the Rabbinic sources draw from the Book of Job. On this licit nurrative anthropomorphism-or is it a theomorphism -? model, they first explain God's command that Abraham sacrifice כI וו ir :tifies God's words with the initial description of Job . his son ו iJcl Despite the events suggested by the tirle of this essay, there is ".l) litcr,11 encounter between Job and the advcrsary, ha-sat{ln . "After these things, God tested Abraham ן I Such encounters are only implied, after the adversary "went out After the words of salan. as it is written. "And the child grew, and ,' I'om the presence ofGod" to inflict catastrophes on Job. But after was weaned" [Gen. 21:8]. Salan spoke before the Holy One, blessed be his physical setbacks, Job's encounters with the adversary are He: Master of the Universe! You graced this old man with the fruit of the l'igl)I'OtISly continued in debates with his false friends. Eliphaz , womb at the age of a hundred, yet of all the banquet he prepared, he did II l3iIJad, and Zophar speak many wise words, yet they err when not have one turtle-dove or pigeon to sacrifice before YOU. (Sanhedrin 89b) cy accuse Job of wrongdoing. At first, we may find nothing to ו tl I'eproach in the sober speech of Eliphaz : The Rabbis interpret the test of Abraham as a parallel to Job's trials. But satan appears here without the definite article: satan is 11' one attempts a word [davar] with you, will you be weary ? either a proper name, perhaps influenced by Persian, dualistic 13111 who can refrain from speaking ? ideas, or refers to some indefinite adversary. Behold, you have instructed many , And you have strengthened weak hands . According to tradition, there is no early and late, and hence no Your words have upheld the stumbler, time in Scripture; God's language is beyond time. Once Job has And you have encouraged feeble knees . been alluded to, then, the cross-references mUltiply. To explain Htl1 now it comes upon you, and you are weary , why Abraham's journey to Moriah lasts three days, the Rabbis II louches you, and you are frightened . describe several obstacles, including an encounter with satan: ls not your fear of God your confidence [kislatecha.] d your hope the integrity of your ways ? Satan anticipated him on the way and said to him, "lf one attempts a ן A1 Remember, who that was innocent ever perished? (Job 4:2-7 ) word [davar] with you, will you be weary? ... Behold, you have instructed many, and you have strengthened weak hands. Your words Once again we encounter a series of questions. What is Eliphaz's have upheld the stumbler.... But now it has come upon you, and you are [Job 4:2-5] mode of questioning? The first question appears as a gentle re - weary." He [Abraham] said to him, "1 will walk in my integrity." [Ps. 26: 1] quest; Elihu asks whether he may respond to Job. Yet he is not He said to him, "}s not your fear of God your foolishness [kisla interested in Job's answer, for he cannot resist speaking. Eliphaz techa}?" [Job 4:6] accuses Job of hypocrisy: "Your words have upheld the stumbler He said to him, "Remember, who that was innocent ever perished?" ... / But now it comes upon you, and you are weary." Eliphaz [Job 4:7] (Sanhedrin 89b) further employs leading questions that do not aim at conversation , but only accuse Job: "Who that was innocent ever perished?" By The absence of names produces a somewhat dizzying effect. We implication, if Job perishes, he is guilty. We begin to see that Job's almost lose track of the speakers, as both the adversary and companions are his accusers, his adversaries . Abraham employ phrases from the Book of Job and the Psalms. In lf this seems unlikely, consider a remarkable passage in trac - fact there are no speakers; there are only quotations from Scrip tate Sanhedrin of the Babylonian Talmud. To modern readers, this ture. At the same time, the retelling of Abraham's story sheds light almudic narrative may appear to be a fanciful reconstruction. But on the story of Job. If satan-without the definite article-canז such legends often achieve significant interpretations. In a delib - speak like Eliphaz, then we have an insight into the character of erately anachronistic commentary on the binding of Isaac (Genesis Eliphaz as an adversary, a satan. Notice, in passing, that the y 11 ז IE ADVI ~ RSJ\I ו'ו' H ' ו'ו S W זו ill RI':SI)()NSf<: J()ll'S ENCOUN'fE CSS platitudes, but Job seeks a more ol"iginal and "ו icnus cXp "ו"I Iנן IJvcrs,lry resorts to a deceptive play on words. Eliphaz asks, "Is ' I'I, m of language in debate wilh God, Casting aside "ו cing fO ן viI ן ce?" But S(II(ln plays on a ( l)I וו I" fe,lr of God your confide ו l)1 YOL ןI : l il' cliches, he saysנו se into the aggres - II "ו llecll(l, and turns this ve נ'/) cuning 01' ki וn "ו j"Llrlhe si\lc challenge: "Is not your fear of God your foolishness?" Or , II you kno\v, 1 also know ,ו 1PS this insidious hint is already present when Eliphaz speaks WI,ו cl'I ךJ , ot inferior to you ו I ווI >ג cse words . 1 ן II , shall speak to Shaddai ז , But the Rabbinic revision of Abraham and Job presses further . Yct ( desire to reason with God. (Job 13:2-3 ז Eliphaz has been identified with the adversary, Abraham is Anu "11 iLlcntified with Eliphaz, for he defends himself with the question , he debates evolve, or fail to evolve, in three cycles: Job 4-14 'ז' liphaz raises: "Who that was innocent ever perished?" Eliphaz::1 ,1((LISeS Job with this question, while Abraham uses it in self- 15-21, ,lnd 22-31. As we move from the first to the second round , , wcver, a change occurs. The false friends become more hostile ן)(Jcfense, What the companions say is not necessarily wrong, but I d Job finds he must respond to their attacks. They briefiy ן ey wrongly address themselves to the righteous Job. Depending , II ן II ccced in defiecting him from his intention 10 address God, as he ו n context, Eliphaz's words are appropriate to either satan or to sL ך) Abl",lham, Context also determines whether a friend speaks as an II"ics to defend against their slanders and commonplaces. There can ,IJversary, or whether perhaps Job speaks as his own enemy. May be no clear resolution in such a dispute between orthodox thought wc inlerpret the disputes between Job and his friends as refiections , Inu an individual who seeks immediate knowledge of God. The - I"oblem for Job is not to attain wisdom, which he already pos (ן of ,In internal struggle? Abraham's encounters with the adversary . ight be viewed as encounters between reason and irrationality , sesses, but to reconcile his knowledge with his suffering ןרI L)ctween waking consciousness and the unconscious . After the third cycle of speeches, which appears to have been Before hastily accepting or rejecting a psychological interpre - distorted by scribal errors or tampered with by editors, we come to 1,llion, we should read further. How does the discussion between E:-:lihu's tirade. This new voice may have been added at a later date , U combines polemic with subtler arguments. In a sense, Elihu ןו j()b and his companions proceed? We can hardly refer to it as a ,I " uialogue," for the speakers seldom respond to each other. What , lctS as the first literary critic of the book, when in chapter 32 he is the difT'erence between Job's language and that of his friends ? complains that the other speakers have not answered Job. He, on Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar only strive to justify Job's suffer - Ihc contrary, employs relatively accurate quotations in chapters 33 12 ing. They employ pseudo-questions, not in order to probe the ,Ind 34, and attempts direct rebuttals. Further, Elihu introduces a mystery ,of God'·s justice, but to confront Job with conventional new mode of questioning. The friends have raised /eading ques - \visdom . A battle ensues between normative beliefs and personal li()llS, which imply that Job is guilty. Job asks probillg questions , experience. The friends attempt to force Job back to traditional aimed toward truer dialogue and an individual grasp of God's ideas, but since Job denies that he is guilty, he wishes to question ways. Now Elihu brings in a rhetorical style that involves bor - God dire'ctly : derline or limit qllestions. There are hints of this kind of question - ing throughout the Wisdom literature, but it becomes decisive at 1 will g ~ ve free utterance to my complaint , the end of Elihu's speech : 1 will s ~ eak in the bitterness of my souI . .o not condemn me , Stand still, and consider the wonders of Godס : Y to God >גwill S 1 Let me know why you contend with me . Do you know how God commands them, Is it good for you to oppress , And causes the lightning of His cloud? To despise the work of your hands , Do you know the balancings of the clouds, And shine upon the counsel of the wicked? (Job 10 : 1-2 ) The wonders of one perfect in knowledge? , , , I,! HI~SI)ONSJ:<: JOB'S ENCOUNTERS WITH THE ADVERSARY 13 , with Him, sp,'c(ld out the sky ,ו l טY וו I )'; '? is Ihis Ihut hidcs counsel. withoul knowlcdge ו)( VI \ ( ror'? (Job 37 : 14-18 יוi ןnoltcn n ו g .IS a ןו is stro ן Whicl . lve ultcrcd what 1 did not undel'stund> וe 1 I יו()'יIניוIנןן ' l ' ( ful for me, which 1 did not know, (Job 42:3 יו ndc טw )(ט l,;s t וו i ןl'1 CSC ,Ire qtJestions that compel us to be silent. qtlestions that can וו י , ent, Job attains the I-Thou relationship to God he has ו 10n וis I ו I~ I be unswered by God. if at all,ll .. \ 1 II ןI '( 8ehind what are called "rhetorical questions," then, we dis - S()111:!.11t . SUI'ely he cannot expect solutions to the vast questions he ls r"iscd. The only answer is a sequence of questions that leads to ;ןו - ncxpected nuances, M,lny questions work only as accusa ו t וו ' ו) ' , ln recognition: 1 am nothing, 1 know nothing. Only God,1ו e 11111 וון c,'s probe for an answer, while a few provoke an inspired ו S, otI ו li()I y is. so that Hebrew employs the present tense of the verb, "to ו II י ו ogue with I ן ds toward dia ן Ii , S, r,lther th 13ehold, I am of small account; Whut shall 1 answer you? 1 place my hand upon my mouth . (Job 40:4)