How is death viewed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Jewish theology? within the story of Job? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments about death (3:13ff) present the first description of death in the story/play. Such descriptions need to be tracked through the story/play. How do these descriptions vary?
Note (Peterson’s wording) “resting in peace”, “asleep”, “feeling no pain”, “in the company of kings and statesmen” . . . – the ‘scrapheap’ Job anticipates none of these experiences associated with the death of the blessed within the variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm he had shared with his close friends.
Eliphaz reminds the ‘scrapheap’ Job he has “spoken words that clarify, encouraged those who were about to quit” (4:3). What about this wording? Is the purpose of “instructing” (RSV) to clarify? Does Peterson’s translation stay within the metaphor of ‘weak hands’? Is Eliphaz associating the ‘scrapheap’ Job with these (4:3-4) conditions literally? figuratively? both?
Eliphaz says ‘God’ is angry (4:9) in response to evil. The ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no evidence in his misery of such anger toward any evil for which he is accountable. Instead, he sees ‘God’ as unjustifiably and intentionally targeting him with disturbing delight.
The 4:17-18 statements in the story/play gets to the crux – i.e., the ‘scrapheap’ Job claims to have been morally consistent whereas ‘God’, he argues, has not. What does it mean, within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to say ‘God’ is righteous if suffering such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s suffering without justification is attributed to the intention or permission of ‘God’? Does Eliphaz accurately represent the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in suggesting that ‘God’ does not trust any being (4:18)? Saying “God is righteous” is anthropomorphic. And Eliphaz’s reference to ‘God’ having servants (attendants?) is clearly sociomorphic.
From 5:1 forward in the story/play, Eliphaz increasingly loses touch with or focus on the “scrapheap’ Job. He leaves the impression (5:1-2) that no one who might hear a call for help from the ‘scrapheap’ Job will respond (similar to reports of individuals being shot or beaten to whom no bystander responds). Who does Eliphaz include with ‘anyone’? Is the reference limited to the “holy angels” (Peterson) or “holy ones” (RSV)? Would he include ‘religious’ functionaries/professionals? And ‘the righteous’ too? Why will no one respond? fear of punishment by association? fear of being collateral victims? After all, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s house certainly appears to be cursed (5:3).
I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job concludes Eliphaz has him in mind (5:2) with the references to “hot temper” (RSV -- “vexation”) or “jealous anger” (RSV -- “jealousy’) or “fool” (Peterson and RSV). Is there a difference between ‘fool’ and ‘simpleton’? In the context of Wisdom Literature, calling the ‘scrapheap’ Job a fool is a very serious charge. The Hebrew word here for ‘fool’ is not the word common in the Proverbs references to a fool. A ‘simpleton’ is someone easily deceived. Perhaps Eliphaz is trying to be gentle by not using the harsher word for ‘fool’. But he is still slapping the ‘scrapheap’ Job with his own verdict concerning his problems. The harsher word for ‘fool’ never occurs in the story/play. Is that because the author of the dialogues inserted between the prologue and the epilogue realizes the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not a fool in the harsher sense, but in fact speaks courageously what is true?
I find the RSV translation -- “but suddenly I cursed his dwelling” (5:3b) confusing. Peterson has “suddenly their houses are cursed”. The Hebrew word is first person. The word (which first occurs in 3:8) is not a common verb for ‘curse’. Peterson’s translation resolves the confusion.
Is Eliphaz arguing against “putting down roots” (Peterson) or “taking root” (RSV) when blessed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm warn against or discourage actually “putting down roots” in this life? Are the roots Eliphaz has in mind more theological than social? Is he implying that “putting down roots” leads to one’s house eventually being cursed? Or does “suddenly” indicate he is saying one’s house can be cursed for no reason?
Eliphaz sounds very aristocratic (5:4-5), full of disdain and disrespect for the hungry and the thirsty. The perspective found in Proverbs understands poverty to be a punishment, but also encourages the seeker of wisdom to be generous. The notion that poverty results from disobedience stigmatizes the poor, the diseased, and those who have suffered great loss. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm permit (even promote) the dispositions and corresponding behavior Eliphaz endorses? Yes.
“Their children out in the cold, abused and exploited, with no one to stick up for them” (5:4) -- painfully vivid.
At this point, Eliphaz puts the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology and liturgy in front of (and, thereby, eclipses) the harsh realities being experienced by the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Eliphaz looks/sounds ridiculous to me. How does he look/sound to those within the ‘religious’ sphere?
Note (Peterson’s wording) “resting in peace”, “asleep”, “feeling no pain”, “in the company of kings and statesmen” . . . – the ‘scrapheap’ Job anticipates none of these experiences associated with the death of the blessed within the variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm he had shared with his close friends.
Eliphaz reminds the ‘scrapheap’ Job he has “spoken words that clarify, encouraged those who were about to quit” (4:3). What about this wording? Is the purpose of “instructing” (RSV) to clarify? Does Peterson’s translation stay within the metaphor of ‘weak hands’? Is Eliphaz associating the ‘scrapheap’ Job with these (4:3-4) conditions literally? figuratively? both?
Eliphaz says ‘God’ is angry (4:9) in response to evil. The ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no evidence in his misery of such anger toward any evil for which he is accountable. Instead, he sees ‘God’ as unjustifiably and intentionally targeting him with disturbing delight.
The 4:17-18 statements in the story/play gets to the crux – i.e., the ‘scrapheap’ Job claims to have been morally consistent whereas ‘God’, he argues, has not. What does it mean, within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to say ‘God’ is righteous if suffering such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s suffering without justification is attributed to the intention or permission of ‘God’? Does Eliphaz accurately represent the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in suggesting that ‘God’ does not trust any being (4:18)? Saying “God is righteous” is anthropomorphic. And Eliphaz’s reference to ‘God’ having servants (attendants?) is clearly sociomorphic.
From 5:1 forward in the story/play, Eliphaz increasingly loses touch with or focus on the “scrapheap’ Job. He leaves the impression (5:1-2) that no one who might hear a call for help from the ‘scrapheap’ Job will respond (similar to reports of individuals being shot or beaten to whom no bystander responds). Who does Eliphaz include with ‘anyone’? Is the reference limited to the “holy angels” (Peterson) or “holy ones” (RSV)? Would he include ‘religious’ functionaries/professionals? And ‘the righteous’ too? Why will no one respond? fear of punishment by association? fear of being collateral victims? After all, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s house certainly appears to be cursed (5:3).
I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job concludes Eliphaz has him in mind (5:2) with the references to “hot temper” (RSV -- “vexation”) or “jealous anger” (RSV -- “jealousy’) or “fool” (Peterson and RSV). Is there a difference between ‘fool’ and ‘simpleton’? In the context of Wisdom Literature, calling the ‘scrapheap’ Job a fool is a very serious charge. The Hebrew word here for ‘fool’ is not the word common in the Proverbs references to a fool. A ‘simpleton’ is someone easily deceived. Perhaps Eliphaz is trying to be gentle by not using the harsher word for ‘fool’. But he is still slapping the ‘scrapheap’ Job with his own verdict concerning his problems. The harsher word for ‘fool’ never occurs in the story/play. Is that because the author of the dialogues inserted between the prologue and the epilogue realizes the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not a fool in the harsher sense, but in fact speaks courageously what is true?
I find the RSV translation -- “but suddenly I cursed his dwelling” (5:3b) confusing. Peterson has “suddenly their houses are cursed”. The Hebrew word is first person. The word (which first occurs in 3:8) is not a common verb for ‘curse’. Peterson’s translation resolves the confusion.
Is Eliphaz arguing against “putting down roots” (Peterson) or “taking root” (RSV) when blessed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm warn against or discourage actually “putting down roots” in this life? Are the roots Eliphaz has in mind more theological than social? Is he implying that “putting down roots” leads to one’s house eventually being cursed? Or does “suddenly” indicate he is saying one’s house can be cursed for no reason?
Eliphaz sounds very aristocratic (5:4-5), full of disdain and disrespect for the hungry and the thirsty. The perspective found in Proverbs understands poverty to be a punishment, but also encourages the seeker of wisdom to be generous. The notion that poverty results from disobedience stigmatizes the poor, the diseased, and those who have suffered great loss. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm permit (even promote) the dispositions and corresponding behavior Eliphaz endorses? Yes.
“Their children out in the cold, abused and exploited, with no one to stick up for them” (5:4) -- painfully vivid.
At this point, Eliphaz puts the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology and liturgy in front of (and, thereby, eclipses) the harsh realities being experienced by the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Eliphaz looks/sounds ridiculous to me. How does he look/sound to those within the ‘religious’ sphere?
