The ‘scrapheap’ Job “cursed the day of his birth” (3:1). But he is not the only one born on that day. In cursing his day of birth, he curses their day of birth too. The consequences of such a cursing would have befallen them as well. This self-centeredness is noticeably parallel to the lack of regard or respect the prologue ‘God’ has for those damaged or destroyed around Job in the two cycles of calamities. Servants die and no doubt some of the marauding enemies die too. I would cast the prologue Job as near enough to offer aid to some of these sufferers, but safely distant -- existentially and theologically -- from the harsh realities of suffering until such came to him.
What concretely would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be expecting if indeed his day of birth is cursed? Perhaps he is wishing the day would somehow be skipped over in the calendar. Or perhaps he is wishing that everyone born on that day would be stillborn or die soon after birth.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job refers to “those who are good at cursing” (3:8). Who is he asking to curse the day of his birth? What skill do they have? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s lament shifts from third-person to first-person (vs. 11). Is he addressing ‘God’ in part or all of his lament? Is he addressing anyone at all? Or is he saying he would “curse the day of his birth” if he could?
Is ‘the day’ to which the ‘scrapheap’ Job refers the day of his conception? Peterson has “the night of my conception” (3:6). Or is it the day of his delivery (e.g., 3:7, 11)? The Hebrew wording suggests both. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute stillbirths to the intentions and plans of ‘God’ (as 3:16 suggests)? Yes.
Re his date of birth, the ‘scrapheap’ Job longs -- “ . . . turn that night into pure nothingness” (3:7). The RSV has “let that night be barren”. The Hebrew word here is a rare word that has to do with absence of life (e.g., a barren woman, a barren desert).
Is there a link – philosophical or symbolic – between ‘barren’ and ‘nothingness’? Did Jewish thought in antiquity include the metaphysical concept of ‘nothingness’ (as in existential philosophy or as in Barth’s way of viewing ‘evil’ as nothingness)? Koheleth (the Ecclesiastes essay) and the ‘scrapheap’ Job sound ‘existential’ in many ways. Sheol was understood in antiquity to be a fading into nothingness, an eventual nothingness. However, ‘God’ was not thought to have created out of nothingness (ex nihilo creation being a later/Christian extrapolation). Not being inclined toward metaphysical reflection, Jewish thinkers in antiquity apparently did not feel disturbed by the implied dualism of ‘God’ and ‘matter’ as in potter and clay.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job agonizes, “Why didn’t I die at birth . . .” (3:11ff). It is important to track closely the perceptions of death and dying throughout the story/play. Does Job change his perceptions of death? of the dying process? of the dying experience? Yes. His perceptions change in significant ways as his experience suddenly shifts toward and remains disturbingly similar to the stories the caravan travelers are telling around campfires about the desperate aspects of the human condition. The ‘scrapheap’ Job experiences firsthand how tragic and ugly suffering/dying can be. On the other hand, according to Eliphaz (5:26), the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm promises a very different dying experience – i.e., a romanticized, idyllic death.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job presses -- “Why does God bother giving light to the miserable, . . .” (3:20-22). His statements make vivid how “his suffering was very great” (2:13) – especially his references to those “who want in the worst way to die” (RSV “who long for death”) and “who can’t imagine anything better than death” (RSV “who dig for it more than for hidden treasures”). Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute the survival and continuing existence of every miserable individual directly and intentionally to ‘God’? I think this deduction cannot be avoided within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. There is obvious relevancy here for the assisted dying issues in the practice of medicine.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job laments -- “What’s the point of life when it doesn’t make sense, when God blocks all the roads to meaning?” (3:23). Peterson’s paraphrase is a bit loose. He does, however, capture the sense quite well. The RSV has “a man whose way is hid”. The Hebrew words for ‘hid’ in 3:21 and 3:23 are not the same. The RSV has “fenced in” (not the same verb as in 1:10). The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s idea/question is -- “Why does a person continue to live when the way is hidden or the person is fenced in? Why would God do such a cruel thing?”
This question (3:23) is dependent on/rooted in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The ‘scrapheap’ Job still thinks at this point there is sense or meaning to his life, but it is hidden from him. Would disclosure of the prologue’s scenes in the courts of ‘God’ satisfy the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s search for sense or meaning to his plight? I think not. Not far ahead for him is the thought that in fact there is no longer any divinely intended/designed sense or meaning to his life. He then will face a radical (i.e., to the root) decision/threshold – whether or not to conclude that no one’s life has the purpose or the meaning proposed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works off the premise that life’s divinely intended/designed sense or meaning is sufficiently clear to establish confidence that the paradigm is reliable. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s experience leads him to the opposite view. He sits on the ‘scrapheap’ frustrated and tortured, with the decision whether or not to reject the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm drawing nearer and nearer.
What concretely would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be expecting if indeed his day of birth is cursed? Perhaps he is wishing the day would somehow be skipped over in the calendar. Or perhaps he is wishing that everyone born on that day would be stillborn or die soon after birth.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job refers to “those who are good at cursing” (3:8). Who is he asking to curse the day of his birth? What skill do they have? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s lament shifts from third-person to first-person (vs. 11). Is he addressing ‘God’ in part or all of his lament? Is he addressing anyone at all? Or is he saying he would “curse the day of his birth” if he could?
Is ‘the day’ to which the ‘scrapheap’ Job refers the day of his conception? Peterson has “the night of my conception” (3:6). Or is it the day of his delivery (e.g., 3:7, 11)? The Hebrew wording suggests both. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute stillbirths to the intentions and plans of ‘God’ (as 3:16 suggests)? Yes.
Re his date of birth, the ‘scrapheap’ Job longs -- “ . . . turn that night into pure nothingness” (3:7). The RSV has “let that night be barren”. The Hebrew word here is a rare word that has to do with absence of life (e.g., a barren woman, a barren desert).
Is there a link – philosophical or symbolic – between ‘barren’ and ‘nothingness’? Did Jewish thought in antiquity include the metaphysical concept of ‘nothingness’ (as in existential philosophy or as in Barth’s way of viewing ‘evil’ as nothingness)? Koheleth (the Ecclesiastes essay) and the ‘scrapheap’ Job sound ‘existential’ in many ways. Sheol was understood in antiquity to be a fading into nothingness, an eventual nothingness. However, ‘God’ was not thought to have created out of nothingness (ex nihilo creation being a later/Christian extrapolation). Not being inclined toward metaphysical reflection, Jewish thinkers in antiquity apparently did not feel disturbed by the implied dualism of ‘God’ and ‘matter’ as in potter and clay.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job agonizes, “Why didn’t I die at birth . . .” (3:11ff). It is important to track closely the perceptions of death and dying throughout the story/play. Does Job change his perceptions of death? of the dying process? of the dying experience? Yes. His perceptions change in significant ways as his experience suddenly shifts toward and remains disturbingly similar to the stories the caravan travelers are telling around campfires about the desperate aspects of the human condition. The ‘scrapheap’ Job experiences firsthand how tragic and ugly suffering/dying can be. On the other hand, according to Eliphaz (5:26), the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm promises a very different dying experience – i.e., a romanticized, idyllic death.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job presses -- “Why does God bother giving light to the miserable, . . .” (3:20-22). His statements make vivid how “his suffering was very great” (2:13) – especially his references to those “who want in the worst way to die” (RSV “who long for death”) and “who can’t imagine anything better than death” (RSV “who dig for it more than for hidden treasures”). Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute the survival and continuing existence of every miserable individual directly and intentionally to ‘God’? I think this deduction cannot be avoided within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. There is obvious relevancy here for the assisted dying issues in the practice of medicine.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job laments -- “What’s the point of life when it doesn’t make sense, when God blocks all the roads to meaning?” (3:23). Peterson’s paraphrase is a bit loose. He does, however, capture the sense quite well. The RSV has “a man whose way is hid”. The Hebrew words for ‘hid’ in 3:21 and 3:23 are not the same. The RSV has “fenced in” (not the same verb as in 1:10). The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s idea/question is -- “Why does a person continue to live when the way is hidden or the person is fenced in? Why would God do such a cruel thing?”
This question (3:23) is dependent on/rooted in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The ‘scrapheap’ Job still thinks at this point there is sense or meaning to his life, but it is hidden from him. Would disclosure of the prologue’s scenes in the courts of ‘God’ satisfy the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s search for sense or meaning to his plight? I think not. Not far ahead for him is the thought that in fact there is no longer any divinely intended/designed sense or meaning to his life. He then will face a radical (i.e., to the root) decision/threshold – whether or not to conclude that no one’s life has the purpose or the meaning proposed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works off the premise that life’s divinely intended/designed sense or meaning is sufficiently clear to establish confidence that the paradigm is reliable. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s experience leads him to the opposite view. He sits on the ‘scrapheap’ frustrated and tortured, with the decision whether or not to reject the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm drawing nearer and nearer.
