Ok, I just need to get something off my chest. Do you know how איוב, which transliterates very nicely to Iyov, got butchered into Job? יעקב'Yaakov to Jacob? Or ישעיהו/Y'shaiyahu into Isaiah? First the Greek translation, the Septuagint, just blanket turned all ש's to "S" instead of "Sh", regardless of the original word. Then Latin turned the final ח into an H. Finally, the Bible was first printed in German, in which their "J" is pronounced like our "Y". German actually has a voiceless uvular fricative (our ח) and a voiceless palatal fricative (our כ). But good ole 'Merican doesn't, so those just became a soft or hard 'k'. Pronounce Michael or Jacob as a German would and they sound pretty close to the original. The word "messiah" got adulterated by both Greek and Latin. Huh... phylogeny recapitulates ontology. That is, the development of their distortion of what the משיח means is reflected in the very word they use for it. (Ok, it's not a perfect fit, but (1) it is quite close, and (2) I've always loved using that phrase because it sounds very important, yet says almost nothing.)
I think we all (that, the whole world) knows the set up: Iyov is this amazing tzadik, the Satan claims that Iyov is not as good as he seems. HaShem gives the Satan permission to make his case against Iyov by afflicting him with such suffering that it would try, literally, the patience of Job. My chavrusa and I are focusing our attention on the arguments his friends bring and how Job answers them.
Elifaz is first. Elifaz, according to one opinion in Chazal is actually Elifaz ben Eisav, whom we know from Chumash. The same Elifaz that robbed Yaakov of all his possessions -- thus rendering Yaakov impoverished and so considered, in some fashion, dead -- so that he could technically honor his father's command to kill Yaakov without actually shedding any of Yaakov's blood. Another option, of course, would have been to conclude that to honor his father's command would be a horrible travesty of justice and therefore not feel compelled at all. Nonetheless, that is Elifaz; that is western society.
Elifaz argues that HaShem is all good and all just; therefore if Iyov is suffering, it is to remove the stain of some -- perhaps slight, but nevertheless real -- sin that Iyov has committed. Elifaz's proof? That Iyov is suffering. Iyov answers back: Dude, I am telling you that I didn't sin. I have carefully and meticulously made a profound investigation and have found no sin. If I have missed something, then by all means, please enlighten me. Elifaz has no actual evidence of a sin, simply the inescapable conclusion based on the circumstantial evidence.
I really loved Iyov's rebuttal to Elifaz. Iyov was telling Elifaz that his "proof" for some sin was that it contradicted Elifaz's world view. Elifaz was unwilling to change his world view in light of evidence. His world view had become his religion.
This was precisely my argument with the theory of evolution. There are very large contradictions with actual evidence, actual fossil evidence. I will mention one. There are areas where fossils of more complex organisms appear deeper -- and therefore older by their own dating schemes -- than fossils of simpler/more ancient organisms. Their explanation? There was a geologic upheaval that inverted the fossil record, putting the older fossils above the newer ones. Their evidence for this geologic upheaval? Well, obviously since the fossils of more complex organisms are deeper than the more primitive fossils.
I asked, "Or maybe your model is wrong?" They answered, "Nope, can't be. Otherwise you'd have to believe in creation and received wisdom. You would have to believe in G-d."
Ah.
Comments