Peterson has “And now, finally, God answered Job from the eye of a violent storm” (38:1). The RSV, following the Hebrew text more closely, does not have the word “finally”. “Finally” underscores the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s impatience and frustration. The RSV has “Lord” instead of “God”. The terms “God” and “the Almighty” are more common in Job than is the term “Lord”. Are these terms used differently in the prologue/epilogue than in the extended middle sections of the story/play? The term for “violent storm” (RSV “whirlwind”) is not the term used in the prologue. In light of the destructive wind described in the prologue, the ‘scrapheap’ Job likely associates this violent wind with a view of ‘God’ as being brutally destructive.
Interpreting the story/play in a sarcastic manner continues to be plausible through the whirlwind section. In staging this scene, is only the ‘scrapheap’ Job being addressed? or his three close friends also? and Elihu? Are the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s wife, family, and wider circle of acquaintances near?
Is the absence of specific references to the Accuser in the whirlwind section intentional? significant? By not reintroducing the Accuser, the story/play seems to put the onus squarely on ‘God’ both for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight as well for the collateral killing/destruction that resulted from the prologue tragedies that befell Job. (Note the Accuser is also not mentioned in the epilogue.) Not reintroducing the Accuser accentuates the flawed core premise of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – i.e., that ‘God’ ultimately bears responsibility for all that happens.
Peterson has ‘God’ ask, “Why do you confuse the issue?” (38:2) where the RSV has ‘God’ ask, “Who is this that darkens counsel?” Who is ‘God’ calling confused? For whom does ‘God’ think counsel has been darkened? Is it possible ‘God’ does not recognize the ‘scrapheap’ Job? And what is the issue? The question sounds similar to a judge reacting to an attorney’s attempt to introduce more ideas and/or new information just when a court case is about to be decided.
Re “Pull yourself together, Job! Up on your feet! Stand tall!” (38:3 in Peterson) -- Can the ‘scrapheap’ Job in his deteriorated physical/emotional state do so? The demand and the tone strike me as very insensitive and could be heard to mean ‘God’ does not consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be as bad off as he looks, sounds, thinks.
The comments on the natural order (38:4-11) are very interesting. Peterson brings out the newborn analogy with “the ocean gushed forth like a baby from the womb” (38:8), “I made a playpen for it, a strong playpen so it couldn’t run loose” ((38:10), and “Your wild tantrums (RSV, “proud waves”) are confined to this place”. How do these descriptions compare/contrast with the Genesis stories about the natural order? with the observations about the natural order in Ecclesiastes? Is the narrator mixing literal language (e.g., Peterson’s references to “its size”, “the blueprints and measurements”, “foundation”, and “cornerstone”) and metaphorical language (e.g., Peterson’s references to “morning stars sang”, “angels shouted”, “I wrapped the ocean in soft clouds and tucked it in safely at night”) re the natural order? Would the initial readers/hearers have made such a distinction? or taken all these references literally?
This part of the story/play seems to encourage a developmental view of the natural order. Is such a view found in ancient Jewish thought? The newborn analogy is suggestive in at least three additional views -- i.e., (1) the natural order is personified with an independent will, (2) the natural order is to mature past infant/immature behavior, and (3) earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes, et al are interpreted as tantrums.
I have two primary reactions to 38:12-39:30. First, the entire section is thoroughly and essentially pre-scientific in imaging the relation of ‘God’ to the natural order. If Job is recast as a modern/scientific individual, he would be in a position to claim knowledge – even deep knowledge – about many of the questions posed by the whirlwind ‘God’. Though the RSV indicates no parallel for Peterson’s “You don’t for a minute imagine these marvels of weather just happen, do you?” (38:30), Peterson with this question seems to capture the thrust of all the illustrations in 38:12-39:30. Second, as far as I can tell, nothing is said (1) about human beings as a classification of creatures, (2) about the purpose of the natural order, (3) about the baby/adolescent disorder found in the natural order, (4) about mercy, peace, justice, or (5) about the breadth/depth of human suffering. The tone of the whirlwind ‘God’ does not suggest such questions would be entertained if pressed by the ‘scrapheap’ Job. And yet these questions are significant, at least for a ‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’ spirituality and ethics.
What do the questions the whirlwind ‘God’ puts to the ‘scrapheap’ Job have to do with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions?
Interpreting the story/play in a sarcastic manner continues to be plausible through the whirlwind section. In staging this scene, is only the ‘scrapheap’ Job being addressed? or his three close friends also? and Elihu? Are the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s wife, family, and wider circle of acquaintances near?
Is the absence of specific references to the Accuser in the whirlwind section intentional? significant? By not reintroducing the Accuser, the story/play seems to put the onus squarely on ‘God’ both for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight as well for the collateral killing/destruction that resulted from the prologue tragedies that befell Job. (Note the Accuser is also not mentioned in the epilogue.) Not reintroducing the Accuser accentuates the flawed core premise of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – i.e., that ‘God’ ultimately bears responsibility for all that happens.
Peterson has ‘God’ ask, “Why do you confuse the issue?” (38:2) where the RSV has ‘God’ ask, “Who is this that darkens counsel?” Who is ‘God’ calling confused? For whom does ‘God’ think counsel has been darkened? Is it possible ‘God’ does not recognize the ‘scrapheap’ Job? And what is the issue? The question sounds similar to a judge reacting to an attorney’s attempt to introduce more ideas and/or new information just when a court case is about to be decided.
Re “Pull yourself together, Job! Up on your feet! Stand tall!” (38:3 in Peterson) -- Can the ‘scrapheap’ Job in his deteriorated physical/emotional state do so? The demand and the tone strike me as very insensitive and could be heard to mean ‘God’ does not consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be as bad off as he looks, sounds, thinks.
The comments on the natural order (38:4-11) are very interesting. Peterson brings out the newborn analogy with “the ocean gushed forth like a baby from the womb” (38:8), “I made a playpen for it, a strong playpen so it couldn’t run loose” ((38:10), and “Your wild tantrums (RSV, “proud waves”) are confined to this place”. How do these descriptions compare/contrast with the Genesis stories about the natural order? with the observations about the natural order in Ecclesiastes? Is the narrator mixing literal language (e.g., Peterson’s references to “its size”, “the blueprints and measurements”, “foundation”, and “cornerstone”) and metaphorical language (e.g., Peterson’s references to “morning stars sang”, “angels shouted”, “I wrapped the ocean in soft clouds and tucked it in safely at night”) re the natural order? Would the initial readers/hearers have made such a distinction? or taken all these references literally?
This part of the story/play seems to encourage a developmental view of the natural order. Is such a view found in ancient Jewish thought? The newborn analogy is suggestive in at least three additional views -- i.e., (1) the natural order is personified with an independent will, (2) the natural order is to mature past infant/immature behavior, and (3) earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes, et al are interpreted as tantrums.
I have two primary reactions to 38:12-39:30. First, the entire section is thoroughly and essentially pre-scientific in imaging the relation of ‘God’ to the natural order. If Job is recast as a modern/scientific individual, he would be in a position to claim knowledge – even deep knowledge – about many of the questions posed by the whirlwind ‘God’. Though the RSV indicates no parallel for Peterson’s “You don’t for a minute imagine these marvels of weather just happen, do you?” (38:30), Peterson with this question seems to capture the thrust of all the illustrations in 38:12-39:30. Second, as far as I can tell, nothing is said (1) about human beings as a classification of creatures, (2) about the purpose of the natural order, (3) about the baby/adolescent disorder found in the natural order, (4) about mercy, peace, justice, or (5) about the breadth/depth of human suffering. The tone of the whirlwind ‘God’ does not suggest such questions would be entertained if pressed by the ‘scrapheap’ Job. And yet these questions are significant, at least for a ‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’ spirituality and ethics.
What do the questions the whirlwind ‘God’ puts to the ‘scrapheap’ Job have to do with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions?
