A Claim Forfeiting Its Own Right. Why Job Got It Wrong—and Why This Matters for the Rationality of Religion

Heiko Schulz

doi:10.3390/rel10030201

Abstract

The article aims to uncover a deep ambivalence in the figure of Job, as it is presented in the book of the same title, especially in the latter’s “poetry” or dialogue section. This ambivalence corresponds to and in fact emerges from what appears to be a pragmatic paradox: Job is in the wrong (i.e., guilty) in relation to God, precisely by claiming to be right (i.e., innocent); conversely, he can be and must be considered right, if and to the extent that he honestly renounces the latter claim. Accordingly, he cannot both be right (or wrong) and claim to be right or (or wrong)—a special case of what is observed, within epistemology, as an incompatibility of truth and assertibility conditions. In the present text, this core thesis is developed in four steps: the first introduces and briefly contextualizes the claim; the second tries to demonstrate that it provides at least sufficient means for making narrative sense of the book as a whole and, in particular, the controversy between Job and his friends; a third paragraph tackles the (philosophical and/or theological) presuppositions and implications of the thesis from a Christian standpoint, whereas the conclusion addresses the question of if and how the previous findings bear upon the rationality issue. Here, a final paradox emerges: that which would appear to be most rational from a Christian perspective (the task of sin consciousness) must be deemed humanly impossible to fulfill; considering the latter possible renders the task futile, hence irrational.

Highlights

Let me start by suggesting the extension of a familiar distinction—an extension that in my opinion especially law-scholars and lawyers seem to have a hard time considering, much less taking seriously
Nine alternatives, including as a corollary some corresponding divine attributes, remain, if we aim at a complete list of possible types and stages of the retribution principle—including those instantiated by Job and his friends: God Predominantly
Perhaps unexpectedly, Job’s standpoint represents a stronger form of “retributionism” than the one supported by his friends, since he alone has given up all hope for ever being able to understand God’s ways with the world: Yahweh does and can do whatever he sees fit, but for human beings the reasons and motives for such acting must eternally remain inscrutable, to the effect that the latter constantly frustrates their expectations, especially in the midst of suffering

Summary

Introduction

Let me start by suggesting the extension of a familiar distinction—an extension that in my opinion especially law-scholars and lawyers seem to have a hard time considering, much less taking seriously. The chart primarily teaches us that one may settle a moral or legal conflict by renouncing to be right—instead of either appealing to or invoking some moral principle or legal court supposed to settle it in one‘s own favor (and this regardless of whether one is right or only considered to be so.).3 This takes us straight to the story of Job, since, hermeneutical details and intricacies aside, the story seems to suggest that Job’s situation is best described as a shift between option (4) and (5), nota bene, in a very special way: Job is in the wrong (i.e., guilty) in relation to God, precisely by claiming to be right (i.e., innocent) [i.e., (4)]; he can be and must be considered right, if, whenever, as soon as and to the extent that he renounces the latter assertion [i.e., (5)]. Job 42:6 (“I . . . repent in dust and ashes”5 ) and Job 42:7 (“Job has spoken of me what is right”); taken together the two latter references seem to point to either option (5) or (7) before unpacking the—in particular, philosophically and theologically significant—presuppositions and implications of the thesis let me take a brief comparative look at both Job’s and his friends’ views, as they are laid out in the “poetic” or dialogue section of the book, in order, first, to highlight the main differences between them and, second, to spell out the overall dramaturgical structure of their narrative presentation

Job against his Friends: A Narrative Comparison

Generous

A Claim Forfeiting Its Own Right

Conclusions