The beginning of Eliphaz’s response (4:2) is as critical a turning point as is the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s beginning to speak in the presence of his three close friends (3:2ff). In both places, a strategic interpretation decision must be made. I faced this decision in my first serious study of the story/play, occasioned by a senior undergraduate oral interpretation course during the spring 1974 semester. Each student worked all semester on one oral reading for the course. My reading – the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s first words (chapter 3) when he broke the silence with his three close friends.
Peterson’s translation has Eliphaz explain, “It’s hard to keep quiet” (RSV – “Who can keep from speaking?”). Why is Eliphaz trying to keep quiet? And why is it so hard to keep quiet? The impulse to respond when a friend speaks, especially with such jagged views and feelings as the ‘scrapheap’ Job has just expressed, is quite common. Perhaps Eliphaz holds explanations of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s calamities he does not think Job is ready to hear. Perhaps he is trying to be quiet in deference to the ‘scrapheap’ Job as his teacher/elder. (Would the three close friends all say -- as is proposed in the prologue -- that Job is “the greatest . . .”?) Perhaps he is searching for an appropriate response. Perhaps he fears that remaining silent implies approval. Perhaps he is hesitant to speak for ‘God’.
Whatever the three close friends have been thinking while sitting in silence with the ‘scrapheap’ Job for seven days and nights, their ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology has not prepared them for Job’s first words from the ‘scrapheap’. Eliphaz is caught off guard. How should he respond to a teacher/elder who is taking positions so radically different from his previous, familiar, published views? (Note the parallel with the reactions Eberhard Bethge recalled for me in one of our conversations re the reactions of the pre-1939 friends/students of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Dietrich’s post-1939 and, especially, to his prison correspondence ideas re a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality, ethics, theology.)
Eliphaz could be cast as cautious and gentle (i.e., Peterson’s “Would you mind . . .”; RSV’s “If one ventures a word with you, will you be offended?”). Perhaps he could be read/heard in a way that suggests fear and uncertainty (i.e., “Were your former words -- which we too adopted and trusted -- hollow?”). He certainly picks up steam as he prods the ‘scrapheap’ Job back toward the presumed safety of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The most intriguing/challenging character to me is missing in the story/play -- i.e., a character who can be present with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him further. I would have to write such a character into the story/play in an unassuming role (e.g., a valet, a servant, a ‘scrapheap’ worker). I would have this missing character either remain silent or respond by encouraging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to continue speaking. Such a character would represent a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality, ethics, theology.
How would Eliphaz be understood by those reading/watching the story/play who have no idea what is to follow as the story/play unfolds? Note that Eliphaz sees the ‘scrapheap’ Job as not yet collapsed, fallen. He sees him reeling, but not yet knocked out.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s response to Eliphaz suggests he is surprised and disappointed by Eliphaz’s reactions. Why does the ‘scrapheap’ Job think Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar can/will be friends who can/will remain loyal in spite of his expressed despair? Why does he think he can say in their presence what he has not previously said, even to ‘God’? Have they missed key ideas when he had previously “instructing many”, ideas that could have prepared them for what they are now hearing? Has the ‘scrapheap’ Job tried to think critically? with them? If Job is case as ‘the greatest’, I would cast his three close friends as in the top ten ‘greatest’. Have they previously listened passively to Job and assumed he would figure out the problems, untangle the knots? Or have they put more stock in Job’s ‘on the record’ advocacy of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm rather than in his ‘off the record’ questioning?
Peterson’s translation has Eliphaz explain, “It’s hard to keep quiet” (RSV – “Who can keep from speaking?”). Why is Eliphaz trying to keep quiet? And why is it so hard to keep quiet? The impulse to respond when a friend speaks, especially with such jagged views and feelings as the ‘scrapheap’ Job has just expressed, is quite common. Perhaps Eliphaz holds explanations of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s calamities he does not think Job is ready to hear. Perhaps he is trying to be quiet in deference to the ‘scrapheap’ Job as his teacher/elder. (Would the three close friends all say -- as is proposed in the prologue -- that Job is “the greatest . . .”?) Perhaps he is searching for an appropriate response. Perhaps he fears that remaining silent implies approval. Perhaps he is hesitant to speak for ‘God’.
Whatever the three close friends have been thinking while sitting in silence with the ‘scrapheap’ Job for seven days and nights, their ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology has not prepared them for Job’s first words from the ‘scrapheap’. Eliphaz is caught off guard. How should he respond to a teacher/elder who is taking positions so radically different from his previous, familiar, published views? (Note the parallel with the reactions Eberhard Bethge recalled for me in one of our conversations re the reactions of the pre-1939 friends/students of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Dietrich’s post-1939 and, especially, to his prison correspondence ideas re a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality, ethics, theology.)
Eliphaz could be cast as cautious and gentle (i.e., Peterson’s “Would you mind . . .”; RSV’s “If one ventures a word with you, will you be offended?”). Perhaps he could be read/heard in a way that suggests fear and uncertainty (i.e., “Were your former words -- which we too adopted and trusted -- hollow?”). He certainly picks up steam as he prods the ‘scrapheap’ Job back toward the presumed safety of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The most intriguing/challenging character to me is missing in the story/play -- i.e., a character who can be present with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him further. I would have to write such a character into the story/play in an unassuming role (e.g., a valet, a servant, a ‘scrapheap’ worker). I would have this missing character either remain silent or respond by encouraging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to continue speaking. Such a character would represent a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality, ethics, theology.
How would Eliphaz be understood by those reading/watching the story/play who have no idea what is to follow as the story/play unfolds? Note that Eliphaz sees the ‘scrapheap’ Job as not yet collapsed, fallen. He sees him reeling, but not yet knocked out.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s response to Eliphaz suggests he is surprised and disappointed by Eliphaz’s reactions. Why does the ‘scrapheap’ Job think Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar can/will be friends who can/will remain loyal in spite of his expressed despair? Why does he think he can say in their presence what he has not previously said, even to ‘God’? Have they missed key ideas when he had previously “instructing many”, ideas that could have prepared them for what they are now hearing? Has the ‘scrapheap’ Job tried to think critically? with them? If Job is case as ‘the greatest’, I would cast his three close friends as in the top ten ‘greatest’. Have they previously listened passively to Job and assumed he would figure out the problems, untangle the knots? Or have they put more stock in Job’s ‘on the record’ advocacy of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm rather than in his ‘off the record’ questioning?
