In these and other postings, I often refer to the ‘T/O paradigm’. ‘T/O’ is short for ‘Traditional/Orthodox’. I first began referring to a ‘T/O paradigm’ in journal entries made in the mid-1990s. I created the phrase as a way to reference (1) the theological framework within which Job and his three close friends consider life experiences, (2) the theological framework that fails the ‘scrap heap Job’, and (3) my way of extending Bonhoeffer’s critique of ‘religion’ in his prison correspondence.
My judgment is that what I call the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm was systematized and institutionalized first in the northern kingdom of Israel after the Assyrian invasion/exile and later in the southern kingdom of Judah after the Babylonian invasion/exile. The cornerstone for this theological paradigm was a proposed covenant that linked being blessed with being righteous and being cursed with being unrighteous. The paradigm promised that ‘God’ could be trusted as the source of blessing or cursing. The paradigm’s proposed covenant clarified who the people were to be. Postexilic social/political reformers called for a rallying around this covenant or ‘law’ when rallying around a monarch such as David or Solomon was no longer an alternative (at least for the foreseeable future). Stories of the patriarchs (e.g., the stories now recorded in Genesis) and stories of national heroes (e.g., the stories now recorded in Exodus, Joshua, Judges) continued to be told as vehicles for communicating the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (analogous to Greek playwrights and philosophers continuing to use the Homeric stories of the gods). Since those stories circulated in oral forms for many generations prior to the formalization of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, they had to be edited/reconstructed in order to serve as aids in communicating the paradigm. The abbreviated Job story/play (i.e., limited to the full story/play’s prologue plus the epilogue) would have had advantages in this regard because – in contrast to the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et al – Job was presented in the abbreviated story/play as virtually flawless.
My judgment is that several lines of thought gradually evolved rather loosely in oral forms before the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm was systematized and institutionalized. The ‘J’ and ‘E’ lines of thought (which have been discussed in critical scholarship since the 19th century) were the oldest of these lines of thought, being stories minus systematization that predated the earliest idea of ‘Israel’ as a gathered people. Those stories (which, since being absorbed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, are only available in forms reconstructed favorably toward the Deuteronomic covenant) retained hints of a ‘God’ thought to be emotional, near, attentive to human conditions. That ‘God’ could be erratic, illogical, playful, dangerous. That ‘God’ was not considered accountable to a moral code. Human response to that ‘God’ was uncertain, confused, fearful. The earliest stages of the formation of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm into a systematic and institutionalized theology developed during Israel’s pre-exilic monarchies (especially David and Solomon). The ‘P(riestly)’ line of thought (which -- as with ‘J’, ‘E’, and ‘D’euteronomist lines of thought – has been discussed in critical scholarship since the 19th century) also predated the earliest sense of ‘Israel’ as a gathered people, but did not become institutionalized until after the Babylonian invasion/exile.
And then there was a ‘W(isdom)’ line of thought. My judgment is that this line of thought was the most ancient of the lines of thought feeding into the formation of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in ancient Israel. The earliest forms would likely have been folklore (i.e., ‘how to survive/succeed in life’ advice analogous to Foxfire counsel or the ‘all you need to know you learn by kindergarten’ guidance). I see the ‘W’ tradition as having matured sufficiently by the time of the establishment of Israel’s monarchy to supply the ambassadors needed to represent Israel in other royal courts. Teachers in the ‘W’ tradition offered generalizations re practical decision-making that were compatible with the theological deductions that would become characteristic of the Deuteronomic/covenant-based ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
My judgment is that the added sections (chapters 3.1-42.9) in the expanded Job story/play emerged from the ‘W’ line of thought with at least three challenges to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The first challenge argued that the confidence implicit in the Deuteronomic covenant and the wisdom of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (represented without reservation by Job’s three close friends) had crumbled. The second challenge argued that -- given the cultural sophistication and the commitment to common sense, ethical responsibility, and keen observation characteristic of the ‘W’ line of thought -- recasting the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm with only stories of patriarchs and heroes was no more a possibility than returning to the monarchies of Saul, David, and Solomon. The third challenge demonstrated the consequences of inflating the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm into the sheer (i.e., beyond question/challenge) sovereignty of ‘God’, into an emperor concept of ‘God’ (as in the whirlwind section of the Job story/play) that trivialized both the glory days of Israel’s monarchy and the worth of human beings.
It seems to me that variations on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm through the centuries have taken one of two paths – i.e., either (1) to maintain the Deuteronomic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as did Job’s three friends at the expense of being unconditionally aligned with innocent/tragic sufferers or (2) to revert to a ‘J’/‘E’ only fundamentalist-driven ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as represented in the prologue to the Job story/play. I find neither of these paths compelling.
