Why William Lane Craig is a Joke on Christology: Jesus Suffered from "Multiple Personalities"

 

Trinitarian Dr. William Lane Craig proposes Jesus suffered from "multiple personalities"!

Kerry Muhlestein on Isaiah 28:10/2 Nephi 28:30

  

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little. (Isa 28:10)

 

This could be Isaiah saying he would teach gradually and carefully . . . It could also just be gibberish (literally this reads tsav latsav tsav latsav, qav laqav qav laqav), wither either Isaiah mocking the drunken priests or the priests mocking the way they think Isaiah is treating them like a child. The original context seems to be a bit negative, yet when this idea is applied to other time periods, we often see a positive meaning to it. The various contexts in which we interpret scripture are important. IN Isaiah, probably more than anywhere else, we must keep in mind the different ways of interpreting the text, depending upon what era we are applying it to.

 

It is worth noting that the word translated as “line,” which may be related to the word for “measuring,” is similar to the word used in the difficult-to-translate verses of chapter 18 about the Egyptians (verses 2 and 7). While the words are spelled slightly differently, they make the same sound, and both are often translated as having something to do with measuring. In both cases, it may be that Isaiah is trying to give the impression of measuring while simultaneously creating the feeling of foreign or child-like babbling and confusion (which measuring out carefully would remedy).

 

It seems to me that Isaiah most likely intends more than one meaning here. He seems to be teaching that those who truly listen to God will receive commandments, act on them, and thus receive more. Those who truly listen to God will be measured out more to learn, will act on it, and will be measured out even more. Yet by saying this with words that are slightly misspelled and put together in a way that sounds like babbling, and all who follow the ways of the world won’t receive commandments or have truth measured out to them because it will all seem like babbling and gibberish to them. They are too drunk on their own teachings to understand what is being said to them. Thus Isaiah simultaneously teaches the incremental way in which God teaches the righteous and demonstrates why those who don’t listen to God won’t receive this incremental advancement. Isaiah seems to have brilliantly demonstrated the very process he was explaining. (Kerry Muhlestein, Learning to Love Isaiah: A Guide and Commentary [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2021], 232-33)

 

In a discussion of the use of the text in 2 Nephi 28:30, we read the following under the heading of “Book of Mormon Highlight”:

 

Whatever Isaiah’s original intent(s), this idea is quoted in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere, reinforcing a principle that is undoubtedly true. God does teach us line upon line, precept upon precept, giving here and there just enough to keep us progressing and moving forward, if we are willing to receive what He is giving us.

 

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi teaches that a meaning of this verse is that God will teach us incrementally, and if we receive what He gives us, He will give us more. Conversely, if we fail to receive what He gives us, we will lose the truths we have already obtained (see 2 Nephi 28:30). Nephi couches all of this in a discussion of those who trust in man more than God and thus say that they do not need to hear any more of the word of God, or they even become angry when they are given truth from God because it contradicts what they are hearing from men (see 2 Nephi 28:326-31). This understanding of Isaiah’s teachings coincides very well with what we have said about this verse. Nephi’s understanding seems to be informed by the idea that some are so enamored by the ideas of the world that they (unconsciously?) choose to become unable to understand the things of God.

 

This is another place where Nephi’s commentary on Isaiah includes teachings from Isaiah that Nephi has not just quoted. (Ibid., 234, emphasis removed)

 

Further Reading

 

"Line" and "Precept" in 2 Nephi 28:30

Kevin L. Barney, Line Upon Line

Kerry Muhlestein on the Textual Variant between Isaiah 21:8 in the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Isa 21:8 in the KJV reads:

 

And he cried, A lion: My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime, and I am set in my ward whole nights.

 

Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, in their The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, render the verse as:

 

The lookout shouted, O Lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime, and am stationed at my post throughout the night.

 

"A lion" in the MT translates ‎אריה. This is an example of a seemingly small variant resulting in an important change. The Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsaa) reads הראה and results in a more consistent text than the later MT. As Kerry Muhlestein notes:

 

The line translated as “a lion” is probably a mistake that crept into the text over time. The Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the text with one letter different in the word, which makes the translation “one who watches” rather than a “lion.” This makes much more sense in the context and is probably the correct translation. In this case, the watchman reports that he has been fully diligent in his duty. Since watchmen are symbols of those whom God has sent to warn others, and in this case may serve as a symbol of Isaiah himself, it is important to note that the things being seen from afar are being faithfully reported. (Kerry Muhlestein, Learning to Love Isaiah: A Guide and Commentary [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2021], 181, emphasis added)

 

This also agrees with the NET note to Isa 21:8:

 

The Hebrew text has, "the lion," but this makes little sense here. אַרְיֵה‎‏‎ ('aryeh, "lion") is probably a corruption of an original הָרֹאֶה‎‏‎ (haro'eh, "the one who sees"), i.e., the guard mentioned previously in v. Isa 21:6.

 

Kerry Muhlestein’s on Isaiah 6:9-10

  

9 And he said, Go and tell this people, hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; let they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears and understand with their heart, and convert, and he healed.

 

9-10 After volunteering to god God’s will, Isaiah was given a surprising charge. As it is translated in the King James Version, it would seem that he was told to prophesy in a way that the people would not understand. While there is probably some accuracy to this, there are other possible translations that hint at other meanings. Some scholars have suggested that the verb form used in verse 10 could mean something like “declare their hearts fat, declare their ears heavy . . .”

 

The Savior Himself either quotes from a different version or translation, or assigns a different meaning when He quotes and explains the scripture. In Matthew chapter 13, we read of the Savior teaching in parables. When his disciples asked why He did so, He taught that those who were not prepared were not supposed to understand. He said that such people were a fulfillment of Isaiah 6:9-10, and quoted it (at least how it has come down to us) to read “by hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; by seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive; for this people’s heart is waxed gross . . . “

 

John said that many did not recognize Christ despite all His miracles because they fit the description Isaiah provides here (see John 12:39-41). All these ideas can be combined to help us understand that God was telling Isaiah to prophesy to His people in such a way that those who were not prepared would read, hear, and see his message, but they would not understand it because of the condition of their hearts. Implicit in this instruction is that those who are prepared will be able to understand. Isaiah certainly wrote in such a way that those who are not ready to receive his spiritual message will not do so. There are passages of warning that no Israelite of his day could have missed. Their condemnation for their sins and need to repent would have been quite clear often. Yet many passages about the coming Messiah would only be understood at the time and place and by the people who were ready for it.

 

A resolution to this issue is described in chapter 32, when, under a righteous king, people will come to truly heart, see, and understand the things of God.

 

All of this is really a call to seekers of truth to be both worthy and willing to put the time and effort into understanding Isaiah’s words. It seems that Isaiah’s words are given in a way that those who are willing to prepare themselves will learn a tremendous account, but those who do not will learn very little. (Kerry Muhlestein, Learning to Love Isaiah: A Guide and Commentary [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2021], 55-56)

 

Kerry Muhlestein’s Commentary on Proof-Texts in the Book of Isaiah Often Used by Critics of Latter-day Saint Theology

  

Isaiah 8:19-20

 

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:19-20)

 

19 Apparently in Isaiah’s day, many people were seeking advice from those who claimed to be able to communicate with the world of the dad or some other realm. In question form, Isaiah reminds them how much better it is to seek counsel from a living God rather than from those who are already dead.

 

20 Isaiah wants his audience to turn to God’s law and the testimony of Him. Instead, Israel seems to be turning to those who do not speak the word of God, and as a result they have no light in them. Literally, this says that there is no drawn for them. (Kerry Muhlestein, Learning to Love Isaiah: A Guide and Commentary [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2021], 77-78)

 

Isa 31:3

 

Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit, When the Lord stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together. (Isa 31:3)

 

Isaiah contrasts the mortal and temporary powers of man with those of God, which never end. Those who claim to be the strong of the world, and those who rely on those who make that claim, will all eventually fail. This contrasts with those who trust in God, who never fails.

 

The imagery presents an irony. In our view, flesh is so much more real and substantial than spirit. Yet in reality, flesh is so fleeting and temporary and impotent when compared with the Spirit. We must teach ourselves to look with eyes that can see things in this way. It is ever our temptation to trust in that which is tangible or has immediate effect rather than to trust in the thing less easily seen and less immediate. Yet it is the things of the Spirit that are more powerful and enduring, and we must learn to see them and recognize them. (Ibid., 265-66)

 

Isa 42:8 and 43:7

 

I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isa 42:8)

 

8-9 As He has done several times in the preceding chapters, God once again makes it clear that no one should confuse His power with that of false gods. As evidence of the difference, He again points out that they have never correctly prophesied of the future, yet God has done so regularly. (Ibid., 353)

 

Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. (Isa 43:7)

 

Those who will be gathered are those who are called by God’s name, which happens when we make a covenant with Him and take His name upon us. All of this happens in order to increase God’s glory. This idea is best understood when we remember that God’s work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). (Ibid., 359-60)

 

Isa 43:10-11; 44:6-8, 24; 45:6-7

 

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there weas no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, and the Lord; and beside me there is no Saviour. (Isa 43:10-11)

 

10 Those who will gather when God calls, and who will listen, are His people (servant), for they know His voice and come when He calls. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:17). He wants His people to understand and to declare that He is truly the on and only true God. Other nations will not understand this, but His people will, and they will be willing to bear witness of Him. God’s servants will bear witness of Him and His greatness (see C[ome]F[follow]M[e]).

 

11 We see here another use of a title for God. God declares boldly what only His people will truly understand and bear witness of (see CFM): He is the only one who can save. Period. (Ibid., 360)

 

6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isa 44:6-8)

 

6 In a manner similar to what we have seen in the preceding chapters, as Israel) and we enters into a covenant with God, they declare their names (as just happened in the last verse), and He declares His. In this case, He not only declares His name (a CFM theme) but also does so in a way that says something about Himself (which is really the purpose of the names). This is a return to the notion of describing God’s character and His relationship with us by use of His names and titles. He is the beginning and end, the One who saves us, the One who reigns over us, and the only One who is God. This is the Being with whom we have such a remarkable relationship.

 

7-8 Following a pattern we have seen in preceding chapters, as God declares who He is, He also proves He is the only God by showing that He is the only one who has been able to foretell things before they happened. These verses and those that follow contrast the God who was described so well in the preceding verse with the nonsense of idols. (Ibid., 367-68)

 

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; (Isa 44:24)

 

As God has noted frequently in previous chapters, and even in previous verses in this chapter, He is the great Creator. He certainly has the power to redeem us. (Ibid., 370)

 

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isa 45:6-7)

 

6-7 There should be no doubt that God and God alone is responsible for what is happening. While it seems quite clear Cyrus accepts Jehovah as an important deity whom he should appease—and probably even worship—it appears that Cyrus just fit Him into his already existing polytheistic pantheon. Though God is clear that no other gods had brought about Cyrus’s rise, this lesson did not sink in for the Persians. It did, however, for the Jews, who believed firmly that Jehovah alone had brought all this about.

 

The combination of the rising sun with the west indicates that Jehovah is God of the whole earth. The word translated as “evil” is a word that is often used to mean “difficult” or “disastrous” or “calamitous” things. Frequently the scriptures speak of God bringing these conditions about in His efforts to humble His people. (Ibid., 375)

 

Dallin H. Oaks and Jeffrey R. Holland on there being Multiple Fulfillments of Prophecies in the Book of Isaiah

  

The book of Isaiah contains numerous prophecies that seem to have multiple fulfillments. One seems to involve the people of Isaiah’s day or the circumstances of the next generation. Another meaning, often symbolic, seems to refer to events in the meridian of time, when Jerusalem was destroyed and her people scattered after the crucifixion of the Son of God. Still another meaning or fulfillment of the same prophecy seems to relate to the events attending the Second Coming of the Savior. The fact that many of these prophecies can have multiple meanings underscores the importance of our seeking revelation from the Holy Ghost to help us interpret them. As Nephi says, the words of Isaiah “are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy” (2 Ne. 25:4). (Dallin H. Oaks, "Scripture Reading and Revelation," Ensign, January 1995)

 

It is, of course, important to remember that many of Isaiah's prophecies can be or have been or will be fulfilled in more than one way and in more than one dispensation.

 

Obviously, we have material in Isaiah's writings that applies to a whole range of experiences, including that of the premortal Christ, of his first mortal advent in the meridian of time, and of his Second Coming in the latter days.

 

New Testament contemporaries struggled with the duality of Isaiah's prophecies a bit, perhaps too eagerly taking a passage clearly applying to Christ's Second Coming and forcing it to represent his appearance in the meridian of time. Of course, when Christ refused to proclaim himself the messiah of the last days in his first advent, some were disappointed. But everyone should learn a little patience in all of this: many of those prophecies have since then been fulfilled, and they will all be fulfilled in time. (Jeffrey R. Holland, “’More Fully Persuaded’: Isaiah’s Witness of Christ’s Ministry,” in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, Donald W. Parry, John W. Welch, eds. [Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998], 4-5)

 

Samuel ibn Tibbon (c. 1160-c. 1232) on the Two Arrivals of Satan in the Book of Job and the Deaths of Job's Children

Samuel ibn Tibbon (c. 1160-c. 1232) was the first significant Jewish philosopher after Maimonides to comment on the Book of Job. On Satan in Job 1-2, Robert Eisen notes that:

 

There is one matter regarding Maimonides’ views on Satan about which Ibn Tibbon is quite explicit, and that is a disagreement he has with Maimonides on an exegetical point. As we saw in the previous chapter, Maimonides attempts to explain why it is that initially Satan is depicted as presenting himself to God only after the divine beings have done so, while in his second arrival Satan is described as accompanying them. According to my interpretation, Maimonides attributes the different descriptions to the dual function of privation, which, on the one hand, does not have God as its agent but, on the other hand, plays an important role in the perpetuation of the natural world. Ibn Tibbon finds numerous faults with Maimonides’ reading and solves the problem in a different manner.

 

According to Ibn Tibbon, the difference between the two descriptions of Satan is meant to distinguish between those evils that afflict the righteous person’s belongings and children, on the one hand, and those that afflict his own body, on the other. In Ibn Tibbon’s thinking, the question of why the righteous suffer simply does not arise with the loss of children or belongings, for such losses can be account for by explanations having little to do with a righteous person’s conduct. Thus, Job’s children die because of their own sins, not his, while Job’s livestock perish because of chance occurrence. And if Job suffered as a result of these misfortunes, his suffering has no real meaning here. Where the suffering of the righteous does become a problem is when the righteous individual himself is afflicted with bodily illness, for here the evil affects his very person. Therefore, it is this latter sort of evil which the Book of Job is concerned. For this reason, according to Ibn Tibbon, Satan is described as arriving separately from the divine beings the first time he appears. At this point in the story, he afflicts only Job’s children and possessions, and his separate arrival symbolizes that these sorts of evils are not the main concern of the book. However, in the second instance Satan beings illness upon Hob himself, and therefore he is described as accompanying the divine beings in order to symbolize that the evil affecting Job’s body is the prime concern of the story. In short, while Maimonides interprets the different descriptions of Satan’s arrival as relating directly to philosophical matters, Ibn Tibbon sees it more as a literary device designed to alert the reader to that which constitutes the central problem of the story. (Robert Eisen, The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 82-83)

 

In the note for the above, Robert Eisen comments that:

 

In his reinterpretation of Satan’s two arrivals, Ibn Tibbon has also managed to justify why Job’s children die, a philosophical problem that Maimonides ignores. As just noted, they die because of their own sins. Ibn Tibbon never specifies what their sins consisted of, but he may have had in mind their regular feasts of eating and drinking mentioned in Job 1:4. (Ibid., 262 n. 15)

 

Maimonides (1138-1204) on Bava Batra 16a on Guide to the Perplexed and the "Satan" of the Book of Job

In Bava Batra 16a, we read of Satan in the Book of Job being identified with both the “Angel of Death” and the “Evil Inclination”:

 

Reish Lakish says: Satan, the evil inclination, and the Angel of Death are one, that is, they are three aspects of the same essence. He is the Satan who seduces people and then accuses them, as it is written: “So the Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with vile sores” (Job 2:7). He is also the evil inclination, as it is written there: “The impulse of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously” (Genesis 6:5); and it is written here: “Only upon himself do not put forth your hand” (Job 1:12). The verbal analogy between the various uses of the word “only” teaches that the evil inclination is to be identified with the Satan. He is also the Angel of Death, as it is written: “Only spare his life” (Job 2:6); apparently Job’s life depends upon him, the Satan, and accordingly the Satan must also be the Angel of Death. (Bava Batra 16a)

 

Maimonides’ commented on this in his Guide for the Perplexed III:22:

 

They said in the Talmud as follows: R. Simeon, son of Lakish, says: "The adversary (satan), evil inclination (yeẓer ha-ra’), and the angel of death, are one and the same being." Here we find all that has been mentioned by us in such a clear manner that no intelligent person will be in doubt about it. It has thus been shown to you that one and the same thing is designated by these three different terms, and that actions ascribed to these three are in reality the actions of one and the same agent. Again, the ancient doctors of the Talmud said: "The adversary goes about and misleads, then he goes up and accuses, obtains permission, and takes the soul." You have already been told that when David at the time of the plague was shown the angel "with the sword drawn in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem" (2 Sam. xxiv. 17), it was done for the purpose of conveying a certain idea to him. The same idea was also expressed in the vision concerning the sins of the sons of Joshua, the high priest, by the words, "And the adversary stood on his right hand to accuse him" (Zech. iii. 1). The vision then reveals that [the adversary] is far from God, and continues thus: "The Lord will rebuke thee, O adversary, the Lord who hath chosen Jerusalem win rebuke thee" (ibid. ver. 2). Balaam saw prophetically the same vision in his journey, addressing him with the words, "Behold I have come forth to be a hindrance to thee" (Num. xxii. 32). The Hebrew, satan, is derived from the same root as séteh, "turn away" (Prov. iv. 15); it implies the notion of turning and moving away from a thing; he undoubtedly turns us away from the way of truth, and leads us astray in the way of error. The same idea is contained in the passage, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (Gen. Viii. 21). The theory of the good and the evil inclinations (yeẓer ha-tob, ve-yeẓer ha-ra’) is frequently referred to in our religion. Our Sages also say, "Serve God with your good and your evil inclinations." (B. T. Ber. 57a.) They also say that the evil inclination we receive at our birth: for "at the door sin croucheth" (Gen. iv. 7), as is distinctly said in the Law, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (ibid. Viii. 21). The good inclination, however, comes when the mini is developed. In explaining the allegory representing the body of man and his different faculties, our Sages (B. T. Ned. 32b) said: "The evil inclination is called a great king, whilst the good inclination is a child, poor, though wise" (Eccles. ix. 14). All these sayings of our Sages are contained in their writings, and are well known. According to our Sages the evil inclination, the adversary (satan), and the angel [of death], are undoubtedly identical; and the adversary being called "angel, "because he is among the sons of God, and the good inclination being in reality an angel, it is to the good and the evil inclinations that they refer in their well-known words, "Every person is accompanied by two angels, one being on his right side, one on his left." In the Babylonian Gemara (Shabbath 119b), they say distinctly of the two angels that one is good and one bad. See what extraordinary ideas this passage discloses, and how many false ideas it removes.

 

I believe that I have fully explained the idea contained in the account of Job; but I will now show the character of the opinion attributed to Job, and of the opinions attributed to his friends, and support my statement by proofs gathered from the words of each of them. We need not take notice of the remaining passages which are only required for the context, as has been explained to you in the beginning of this treatise.

 

Commenting on Maimonides’ interaction with Reish Lakish in Guide For the Perplexed III:22, Robert Eisen noted that he seemed

 

particularly intrigued by the equation of Satan with the evil inclination or the imagination. He discusses this association at some length, adducing a number of rabbinic passages that he believes support his interpretation of this conception. This focus on the evil inclination has prompted Kravitz and Levinger to conclude that Satan represents nothing other than the imagination in Maimonides’ reading of the Book of Job. However, the evidence would indicate that this is too narrow an interpretation of Maimonides’ views on Satan. . . . Maimonides’ clues about Satan throughout Guide III;22 point in the direction of privation as the referent of Satan. Moreover, in his the angel of death, and the evil inclination are all caused by one underlying factor, and privation is the best candidate for linking these three. (Robert Eisen, The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 253 n. 62)

 

In other words, Maimonides’ does not reject “Satan” being a supernatural personal being.

Zeraḥiah Ḥen (13th-century) on the Book of Job being Allegorical, not Historical

Zeraḥiah ben Isaac ben She’alti’el ḥen was born in the early decades of the thirteenth century in Barcelona. He would relocate to Rome where, in the last quarter of the century, he came a highly honoured teacher of Maimonides’ philosophical thought. His Commentary on the Book of Job is the first exposition on the entirety of the book of Job by a Jewish philosopher in the Maimonidean school.

 

Zeraḥiah understood Job to be allegorical, not historical. As Robert Eisen notes, Zeraḥiah’s reasons for such can be divided into the following seven points:

 

1. Lack of historical detail. According to Zeraḥiah, the allegorical nature of the Job story is indicated by the fact that key historical details are missing. Zeraḥiah points out that we are not told about who Job was or when he lived, oversights that suggest such a character never existed. Similarly, when Satan inflicts calamities on Job, we are not told what day or year they occurred. This indicates that the author meant the story to be representative of events that occur at all times, in all places, and to all people.

 

2. Contrived names of places and persons. Some names and places are contrived in order to reflect back on one or another aspect of the story, a feature characteristic of allegories. Zeraḥiah adopts Maimonides’ view that ‘Uẓ, the place where Job lived, is related to the Hebrew ‘eẓah, “idea” or “insight,” since the Book of Job is supposed to prod the reader to reflect on the philosophical lessons underlying the story. Zeraḥiah also adopts the view alluded to in rabbinic sources that Job’s name, Iyyov, is related to the Hebrew oyev, or “enemy.” As Zeraḥiah argues, the name is reflective of Job’s situation. He is despised by God; he is despied by the forces of nature and by human beings who do him and his loved ones harm; and he is despised by his friends, who critizie him rather than comfort him.

 

3. Unusual descriptions of persons, places, or animals. There are several examples of this tendency in the Book of Job, which again provide evidence of its allegorical character. The numbers of Job’s children and flocks of animals are all presented in pairs adding up to multiples of ten: seven sons and three daughters, seven thousand sheep and three thousand camels, and five hundred oxen and five hundred she-asses. Zeraḥiah proposes that these numbers are contrived so as to be representative of the average numbers of children and possessions that a wealthy individual would have.

 

Zeraḥiah also pays attention to the fact that Job is described by God at the beginning of the story in superlative terms: “There is no one like him on earth” (Job 1:8). Here, too, Zeraḥiah claims that the description is evidence of the story’s allegorical character, for it is unlikely that there would be no other person in the world with Job’s qualities. While Job has virtues, he is not so exceptional that he should merit such praise. Here Zeraḥiah seems to be making the astute observation that allegories—as well as related genres such as parables, fables, and fairy tales—often have characters that are described in unrealistic and exaggerated terms. Finally, Zeraḥiah makes note of the exotic, fictional beasts mentioned in God’s speech, such as the Leviathan. These creatures are also characteristic of allegories. Such animals, Zeraḥiah explains, are designed to capture the attention of the reader and inspire him to explore the inner meaning of the story.

 

4. Unusual events. In addition to the unlikely descriptions and people in the Book of Job, strange occurrences also attest to the allegorical quality of the story. Zeraḥiah specifically cites the destruction of Job’s flock of seven thousand sheep by fire falling from the sky as an event too incredible to be an actual historical occurrence. Zeraḥiah adds that the other two disasters that befall Job are far more believable, and that the author placed the plausible and unlikely events side by side deliberately. The unusual events will inspire the philosophically sophisticated reader not to read the story as historical truth and to search for its esoteric message. The plausible events will convince the unsophisticated reader to accept the story at face value. Zeraḥiah also points to the ending of the story as another unlikely series of events and thus further evidence of the book being an allegory. That Job should have his wealth restored to him and begin a new family stretches the credulity of the reader.

 

5. Literary structure. Zeraḥiah cites on argument regarding the structure of the dialogue as evidence that the story is allegorical. The number of speeches in the Book of Job is precisely twenty-six, which corresponds to the number of premises required to prove God’s existence, according to Maimonides. It is also the numerical equivalent of the Tetragrammaton. These correspondences, Zeraḥiah believes, could not be mere coincidence and again attests to the allegorical nature of the story.

 

6. The uniform style of the dialogue. Zeraḥiah argues that the literary style of all the speakers in Job is the same. It is therefore unlikely that they were historical individuals, since one would expect their speaking styles to differ from one another. Zeraḥiah cites as proof of his point that each of the biblical books of the prophets is written in the distinctive style of its author. IT is thus clear to Zeraḥiah that one author composed the speeches in the Boo of Job, and that they are not the product of actual historical individuals.

 

7. Philosophical difficulties regarding God. Finally, as evidence for the allegorical quality of the Job story, Zeraḥiah points out a number of philosophical difficulties, most of which resolve around the classic problem of anthropomorphic representations of God and His activity. Pretty much all of these difficulties are connected to the conversation between God and Satan. Zeraḥiah cites the implausibility of a number of features in the interaction between the two, in particular the notion that God asks Satan where he has been, as if He were ignorant of his whereabouts and that God would allow Himself to be convinced by Satan to cause an innocent man to suffer. Such events are patently absurd from a philosophical standpoint and again indicate that the Job story is fiction and must contain a deeper meaning. (Robert Eisen, The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 114-16)

 

Saadiah Gaon (882-942) and other Jewish Sources on the Date and Background of the Book of Job

  

In his commentary on the first chapter of Job, Saadiah offers his views regarding the background of the story. Job and his companions are gentiles who live during the period of the exodus from Egypt. They are all descended from the patriarchs or their relatives. Job and Eliju are traced to Abraham’s nephew Nahor; Eliphaz, to Esau; and Bildad, to Abraham. (The lineage of Zophar is unclear.) Saadiah supports all these connections with clues from the biblical text. Saadiah also informs us that the author of the book is Moses. None of these views is original to Saadiah; they all have precedence in rabbinic sources. (Robert Eisen, The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 23)

 

The notion that Job lived during the period of the exodus is mentioned in B.T. Bava’ Batra’ 15a; J.T. Sotah 5:6; Bereshit Rabbah 57:4. These sources also entertain a wide range of other opinions on when Job lived. He is located as early as the period of Abraham and as late as the period of Esther. Two opinions correspond to Saadiah’s view. R. Joshua ben live maintains that Job is a contemporary of Moses. R. Johanan and R. Eliezer claims that Job’s life span was from the time that the Israelites entered Egypt until the time they left. As for the lineage of Job and his companions, Saadiah bases his connections on biblical evidence found in a number of genealogical passages in Genesis. We find similar attempts to identify the characters in the Book of Job in numerous rabbinic sources. The notion that Moses is the author of Job is found in B.T. Bava’ Batra’ 15a. (Ibid., 244 n. 33)

 

The baraita further states that Moses wrote his own book, i.e., the Torah, the portion of Balaam, and the book of Job. This supports Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma, as Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma says: Job lived in the time of Moses. It is written here with regard to Job: “Oh, that my words were written now [eifo]” (Job 19:23), and it is written there in Moses’ words to God: “For in what shall it be known here [eifo]” (Exodus 33:16). The unusual use of the word eifo in these two places indicates that Job and Moses lived in the same generation. (Bava Batra 15a)

 

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai,” etc. When was Job? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham; that is what is written: “ A man was in the land of Oz, his name was Job.” And it is written, “ Oz his firstborn.” Rebbi Abba said, in the days of our father Jacob and Dinah was his wife; that is what is written: “You speak like one of the impious ones”, and it is written: “For an impiety he did in Israel.” Rebbi Levi said, he was in the days of the tribes; that is what is written: “What Sages would tell, they did not conceal from their fathers.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, he was born when they descended into Egypt and he died when they left. A parable of a shepherd when a wolf came and attacked his flock. What did he do? He put up a ram against him. That is what is written: “He delivered me to the evil one, he threw me amongst evildoers.” Rebbi Ismael stated: Job was one of Pharao’s servants, a great one in his government’. That is what is written: “One who feared the word of the Eternal etc.”, and it is written about him, “ a man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”. Rebbi Yose bar Jehudah says, he was in the days when the Judges judged; that is what is written: “Behold, you all did see, why do you turn all into vapor.” You saw what my generation did, that they collect tithes on the threshing floors; “you loved whore’s wages on all grain threshing floors.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He was in the days of the queen of Seba, as it is said: “Seba attacked and took them.” Rebbi Nathan said, he was in the days of the Chaldeans, as it is said: “The Chaldeans attacked from three sides.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, he was in the days of Asuerus, as it is said: “One shall look for beautiful virgins for the king.” And it is written, “no women were found like Job’s daughters.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he was of the returnees of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, He was of the returnees from the diaspora and was a Jew. Therefore Rebbi Joḥanan learned from him the rules of mourning. “Job got up and tore his coat”; Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: From here [one learns] that a mourner has to tear [his garment] while standing. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In My world I had one just Gentile, I gave him his reward and removed him from My world. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Job did not exist and will never live. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inconsistent: There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham, but here he says so? But he did exist but his suffering did not. Then why is it written about him? To tell you that if it had come upon him, he would have withstood it. . . . Moses wrote the five books of the Torah and added the chapters about Balaq and Bileam. He also wrote the book of Job. (Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:6)

 

Saadiah Gaon (882-942): "Satan" in the Book of Job as a Human Being

Saadiah Gaon (882-942) was the first major Jewish philosopher in the medieval period. He spent the first half of his life in Egypt and then wandered through Syria and Palestine before settling in Babylonia where he became head of the prestigious Sura rabbinical academy in 928.

 

In his commentary on Job, Saadiah Gaon provided

 

a series of observations regarding Satan and the beney elohim—the “divine beings,” or, more literally, “the children of God”—who appear in the first two chapters of the book. Saadiah offers a novel interpretation of these figures by suggesting that they are not angels, as is commonly understood, but human beings who live in the land of Uz along with Job. The beney elohim are rendered by Saadiah as “God’s beloved” in accordance with the translation of the term ben as “beloved,” even though it is usually understood as “child,” and Saadiah finds ample support for his interpretation in the biblical text. These people are beloved by God because they gather at regular intervals to worship Him. Hence, the description of their coming “before the Lord” on two separate occasions in the first two chapters. (L.E. Goodman, The Book of Theodicy: Translation and Commentary on the Book of Job by Saadiah ben Joseph al-Fayyūmī [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988], 153)

 

Satan is the leader of this group. He is given his appellation by the biblical text because he is Job’s enemy. Saadiah adduces a number of biblical instances in which the term satan can refer to a human adversary and need not have any reference to an angel. As Saadiah would have it, the group Satan leads expresses envy of Job on account of his wealth and righteousness. They also slander him with the claim that he is righteous only because God has provided him with great blessing, and that if he were to suffer, he would immediately become an apostate. God therefore addresses Satan and offers to bring afflictions upon Job in order to prove to the group that he is indeed worthy of the favor that has been shown to him.[Goodman, The Book of Theodicy, 153-60] (Robert Eisen, The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 24)

 

As noted by Robert Eisen:

 

The very fact that God would address himself to Job’s rival requires comment on Saadiah’s part, since Saadiah is of the opinion that God does not normally speak to someone who is of no special standing. Saadiah’s response is that there are in fact instances in which an ordinary individual is addressed by God if it provides some benefit for the righteous. Thus, for instance, God addresses Abilemech in the interest of Abraham; Laban in the interest of Jacob; and Balaam in the interest of Israel. Here, too, Satan receives prophecy for Job’s ultimate benefit (Goodman, The Book of Theodicy, 159). (Ibid., 244 n. 36)

 

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) on Mark 10:18

  

Moreover, the rich man called him good, as though favouring him, as people favour their companions with honorary titles. [The Lord] fled from that by which people favoured him, so that he might show that he had received this goodness from the Father, through nature and generation, and not [merely] in name. One only is good, [he said], and did not remain silent, but added, the Father, so that he might show that the Son he possesses is good, because he is similar to him. [The rich man] called him Good Teacher, as though one of the [ordinary] good teachers. No one is good, as you think, except one, God the Father. He said God, to show about whom he was speaking. [He said] the Father, to show that [God] could not be called Father, except on account on the Son. Because they were ready to locate many gods in heaven, he said, There is no one good except one, the Father who is in heaven. “I am not God and God, but God from God, and not good alongside good, but good from good.” That is why he said, Father. For if you hear [a judgment] about a good tree, you instantly extend the witness of goodness to its fruit also. Wherefore, just as the son of the Law had come from the Law to be instructed, he replied to him as though from the Law, I am, and there is none besides me. So too here, No one is good, except one. The two [statements] are one [in meaning], just as in Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes XV §2 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 229-30)

 

Further Evidence Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) Held a Lower Mariology than the Dogmatic Theology of Roman Catholicism

One allowable interpretation of Simeon’s prophecy:

 

You will remove the sword, that is, a denial. For the Greek says clearly, The inner thoughts of a great number will be revealed, that is, the thoughts of those who had doubted. For he said, You will remove the sword. Indeed, you too will doubt, because she thought that he was the gardener. [Mary] was in wonderment at his birth, it is said, and at his conception, and she recounted to others who she had conceived, and indeed how she had given birth; and those who had doubted it were comforted by the wonderment of her word. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes II §17 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 67-68)

 

In a footnote to the above, we read that:

 

Ephrem’s writings attest a confusion or “fusion” between Mary, Mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene. (Ibid., 68 n. 4)

 

Elsewhere, on John 2:4 and 19:26-27, we read that:

 

Mary hastened to be a servant of his will therefore instead of the apostles, but since it was not her place either to give orders or to anticipate his word, he reproved her for having been hasty, My hour has not come, that is, they will ask to drink and they will all become aware that the wine had run short, and thereafter will be the miracle. Thus, after his victory over Sheol, when she saw it, she wished to express affection for him like a mother. He entrusted Mary, who had followed [him] to the cross, to John there, saying, Woman, behold your son, and, Young Man, behold your mother. He restrained her again from drawing near to him, because he said, “From henceforth, John is your son.” (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes V §5 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 96-97)

 

Again, Ephrem’s conflation of the two Marys is noted by McCarthy:

 

Ephrem appears to confuse Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Mary Magdalene here. (Ibid., 96 n. 5)

 

Finally, on Luke 2:48, Ephrem imputed to both Mary and Joseph serious parental negligence:

 

I and your father were seeking you in anxiety. To this he replied, It is fitting for me that I should be [in] my father’s house. They were seeking him out of fear least they had killed him. For this is what they along with Herod their prince, had wanted to do to him when he was two years old. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes III §16 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 81)

Further Reading

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) vs. the Immaculate Conception of Mary

Mary’s Exemption from "Birth pangs" in the Mariology of Ephrem the Syrian (306-373)

 

 

Because there are those who dare to say that Mary [cohabited] with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, [we reply], “How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined to a mortal being, and give birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?” If May was blessed of women, she would have been exempt from the curse from the beginning, and from the bearing of children in birthpangs and curses. It would be impossible therefore to call one who gave birth with these birthpangs blessed. If the animals in the ark were restrained because of Noah, it was fitting that the prophetess in whom Emmanuel dwelt should not turn to marriage. Noah’s animals [were restrained] of necessity, but she however through her own [free] will. Just as she gave birth purely, so also she remained holy. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes II §6 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 63)

 

How Mary is the New Eve in Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron

 

[Humanity] had been held by involuntary bonds undeservedly, for its wounds were undeserved. [Adam] had not sinned against Satan who struck him, just as he had not given anything to the Benefactor who healed him. Samson killed many with the jawbone of an ass, but the serpent killed the entire human race through Eve. Our Lord therefore took up these [same] arms with which the adversary had been victorious, and the world condemned. He came down into the combat, and in the flesh which [he had received] from a woman, conquered the world. Conquered, the adversary was condemned. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes I §1 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 40)

 

{[Simeon] also said, In a sign of contradiction, and in your soul itself, for many heretics have expressed different opinions on this matter. Some say that he assumed a body incapable of suffering, and others that he did not accomplish his role as guide in a true body. Some say of [his] body that it was terrestrial, while others say that it was celestial. Some affirm [that he existed] before the world, while others say that his beginning was in Mary. [Simeon] said likewise, You will remove the sword. [The sword], which was protecting Paradise because of Eve, was removed by Mary. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes II §17 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 67-68)