Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, the epilogue is understood to say, “I knew God would make everything work out in the end.” Instead, I hear the epilogue to say, “It all works out in the end. It’s like nothing bad ever happened to Job! Yeah, right.” I think a sarcastic interpretation should be carried into the epilogue from the end of the whirlwind encounter.
Peterson (42:2) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I’m convinced” (RSV “I know”). These two options have some obvious common ground. However, the two translations also illustrate two interpretations re whether Job retains or surrenders his ‘scrapheap’ perspective. “I’m convinced” leaves the impression the whirlwind charges by ‘God’ have shaken Job from his ‘scrapheap’ views. “I know” leaves open the double entendre – i.e., saying under duress “OK . . . Uncle . . . You win . . .” -- in order to survive while holding even more firmly to his ‘scrapheap’ views. I opt for the latter interpretation.
I find Peterson’s translation (42:3a) – “You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water, ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’” -- much more approachable than the RSV’s translation (i.e., “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?”). The RSV is word-for-word, but Peterson catches a very plausible nuance the RSV misses.
Peterson (42:3b) has “babbled” and “made small talk” (RSV “uttered”). His wording accentuates (to the point of comedy and/or sarcasm?) a self-depreciating posture for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. I would direct the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments as double entendre throughout his response.
Peterson (42:5a) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I admit I once lived by rumors of you” (RSV “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear”). What does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind re his pre-whirlwind method for thinking about ‘God’? Peterson (42:6) returns to this question with -- “I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor”.
Peterson (42:6) seems a bit weak, apparently wanting to reinforce the point mentioned above. His wording corresponds with the RSV only with “I’m sorry -- forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise.” The RSV has “I despise myself”. Peterson then seems to fall away from a sarcastic tone for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. However, the RSV can still be read with a sarcastic tone. ‘Despise’ has been used before in the story/play:
Peterson (42:2) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I’m convinced” (RSV “I know”). These two options have some obvious common ground. However, the two translations also illustrate two interpretations re whether Job retains or surrenders his ‘scrapheap’ perspective. “I’m convinced” leaves the impression the whirlwind charges by ‘God’ have shaken Job from his ‘scrapheap’ views. “I know” leaves open the double entendre – i.e., saying under duress “OK . . . Uncle . . . You win . . .” -- in order to survive while holding even more firmly to his ‘scrapheap’ views. I opt for the latter interpretation.
I find Peterson’s translation (42:3a) – “You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water, ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’” -- much more approachable than the RSV’s translation (i.e., “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?”). The RSV is word-for-word, but Peterson catches a very plausible nuance the RSV misses.
Peterson (42:3b) has “babbled” and “made small talk” (RSV “uttered”). His wording accentuates (to the point of comedy and/or sarcasm?) a self-depreciating posture for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. I would direct the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments as double entendre throughout his response.
Peterson (42:5a) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I admit I once lived by rumors of you” (RSV “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear”). What does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind re his pre-whirlwind method for thinking about ‘God’? Peterson (42:6) returns to this question with -- “I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor”.
Peterson (42:6) seems a bit weak, apparently wanting to reinforce the point mentioned above. His wording corresponds with the RSV only with “I’m sorry -- forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise.” The RSV has “I despise myself”. Peterson then seems to fall away from a sarcastic tone for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. However, the RSV can still be read with a sarcastic tone. ‘Despise’ has been used before in the story/play:
5:17 – “Do not despise the discipline of the Almighty” (Eliphaz)
7:16 – “I loathe (despise) my life” (Job)
8:20 – “God will not reject (despise) a blameless person” (Bildad)
9:21 – “I loathe (despise) my life” (Job)
19:18 – “ . . . even young children despise me” (Job)
30:1 – “ . . . whose fathers I would have disdained (despised)” (Job)
31:13 – “If I have rejected (despised) the cause of my male or female slaves” (Job)
34:33 – “Will he then pay back to suit you, because you reject (despise) it?” (Elihu)
36:5 – “Surely God is mighty and does not despise any” (Elihu)
Does the RSV reference to “dust and ashes” mean “in my dust and ashes, I repent” or is the picture one in which the ‘scrapheap’ Job does something new/additional? Unless the sarcastic tone/meaning is maintained, the radical (i.e., to the root of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) position pressed by Job from the ‘scrapheap’ cannot be sustained. To leave the whirlwind situation here (42:6) would lead in one of two unacceptable directions – either ‘God’ throws the ‘scrapheap’ Job out of his presence or the ‘scrapheap’ Job withdraws his case.
I think it is necessary to include 42:7-9 with the sections of the story/play between the prologue and the epilogue. There is no reference in the prologue to the three close friends speaking. Therefore, the reference to ‘God’ in 42:7-9 is still to the whirlwind image of ‘God’.
If the story is to be staged as theater, where are the three close friends during the whirlwind exchanges between ‘God’ and the ‘scrapheap’ Job? They are present as Elihu speaks and there seems to be no dramatic break between the Elihu section and the whirlwind section. Perhaps they are off to the side, oblivious to what is happening. Perhaps they are overwhelmed by the theophany, not understanding or not wanting to understand.
Why is ‘God’ fed up with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends? How does what they have said differ so dramatically from what ‘God’ has just said in the whirlwind? The only point that stands out to me is that the three close friends continued to defend the moral integrity and accountability of ‘God’ whereas ‘God’ as presented in the whirlwind section seems to take offense at the notion of accountability except to someone his equal (i.e., the ‘might makes right’ position). In other words, censoring the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends implies rejection of the (D)euteronomic covenant at the heart of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The RSV has “wrath” (42:7). The word occurs five other times – (19:11) “He has kindled his wrath against me” (Job), (20:23) “God will send his fierce anger upon them” (Zophar), (32:2) “Then Elihu became angry” (narrator), (32:3) “he was angry also at Job’s three friends’ (narrator about Elihu), (32:5) “Elihu became angry” (narrator). How does this wrath compare/contrast with the anger assigned ‘God’ in the prologue?
Peterson has “either with me or about me” where the RSV has “of me” in translating the charge of dishonesty or truthlessness ‘God’ brings against the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. It is as if the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends occur in the presence of ‘God’ who sits as a silent judge throughout the exchanges and now declares the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be the one who has prevailed. One way to cast this scene would be to have ‘God’ suddenly/dramatically illumined in a previously dark space on stage.
Peterson uses ‘friend’ throughout 42:7-8 where the RSV uses ‘friend’ only once (in reference to Eliphaz’s two companions). Is there one word here that can mean ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? How do the Hebrew words compare/contrast with other references in the story/play to ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? The RSV presents the literal Hebrew wording. ‘Friend’ occurs only once in reference to Bildad and Zophar whereas Job is always referred to as ‘servant’ (specifically ‘my servant’). ‘Servant’ might be a higher designation than ‘friend’ in relation to ‘God’. ‘Servant’ can indicate a close relationship.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends are charged with “talking nonsense” (Peterson) (RSV “according to your folly”). The thrust of the whirlwind thundering of ‘God’ seems to be to force the ‘scrapheap’ Job to admit folly or nonsense. Why would ‘God’ see a difference between the three close friends and the ‘scrapheap’ Job here? Is ‘God’ sanctioning the courage to test the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? to face offensive life experiences ‘eye to eye’? Does doing so undermine all wisdom within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
The short version of the story/play -- i.e., prologue plus the epilogue in the last paragraph of the text (42:10-17) -- stands on its own as a separate composition. The intense exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends (chs. 3-32) also stand alone as a separate composition that openly and antithetically challenges the short version of the story/play. The whirlwind section -- perhaps including the Elihu speeches, but definitely including the 42:7-9 paragraph -- stands on its own as a separate composition. If the whirlwind ‘God’ is the narrator’s proposal re ‘God’, it seems to me:
I think it is necessary to include 42:7-9 with the sections of the story/play between the prologue and the epilogue. There is no reference in the prologue to the three close friends speaking. Therefore, the reference to ‘God’ in 42:7-9 is still to the whirlwind image of ‘God’.
If the story is to be staged as theater, where are the three close friends during the whirlwind exchanges between ‘God’ and the ‘scrapheap’ Job? They are present as Elihu speaks and there seems to be no dramatic break between the Elihu section and the whirlwind section. Perhaps they are off to the side, oblivious to what is happening. Perhaps they are overwhelmed by the theophany, not understanding or not wanting to understand.
Why is ‘God’ fed up with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends? How does what they have said differ so dramatically from what ‘God’ has just said in the whirlwind? The only point that stands out to me is that the three close friends continued to defend the moral integrity and accountability of ‘God’ whereas ‘God’ as presented in the whirlwind section seems to take offense at the notion of accountability except to someone his equal (i.e., the ‘might makes right’ position). In other words, censoring the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends implies rejection of the (D)euteronomic covenant at the heart of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The RSV has “wrath” (42:7). The word occurs five other times – (19:11) “He has kindled his wrath against me” (Job), (20:23) “God will send his fierce anger upon them” (Zophar), (32:2) “Then Elihu became angry” (narrator), (32:3) “he was angry also at Job’s three friends’ (narrator about Elihu), (32:5) “Elihu became angry” (narrator). How does this wrath compare/contrast with the anger assigned ‘God’ in the prologue?
Peterson has “either with me or about me” where the RSV has “of me” in translating the charge of dishonesty or truthlessness ‘God’ brings against the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. It is as if the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends occur in the presence of ‘God’ who sits as a silent judge throughout the exchanges and now declares the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be the one who has prevailed. One way to cast this scene would be to have ‘God’ suddenly/dramatically illumined in a previously dark space on stage.
Peterson uses ‘friend’ throughout 42:7-8 where the RSV uses ‘friend’ only once (in reference to Eliphaz’s two companions). Is there one word here that can mean ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? How do the Hebrew words compare/contrast with other references in the story/play to ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? The RSV presents the literal Hebrew wording. ‘Friend’ occurs only once in reference to Bildad and Zophar whereas Job is always referred to as ‘servant’ (specifically ‘my servant’). ‘Servant’ might be a higher designation than ‘friend’ in relation to ‘God’. ‘Servant’ can indicate a close relationship.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends are charged with “talking nonsense” (Peterson) (RSV “according to your folly”). The thrust of the whirlwind thundering of ‘God’ seems to be to force the ‘scrapheap’ Job to admit folly or nonsense. Why would ‘God’ see a difference between the three close friends and the ‘scrapheap’ Job here? Is ‘God’ sanctioning the courage to test the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? to face offensive life experiences ‘eye to eye’? Does doing so undermine all wisdom within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
The short version of the story/play -- i.e., prologue plus the epilogue in the last paragraph of the text (42:10-17) -- stands on its own as a separate composition. The intense exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends (chs. 3-32) also stand alone as a separate composition that openly and antithetically challenges the short version of the story/play. The whirlwind section -- perhaps including the Elihu speeches, but definitely including the 42:7-9 paragraph -- stands on its own as a separate composition. If the whirlwind ‘God’ is the narrator’s proposal re ‘God’, it seems to me:
- The narrator recognizes the simplistic form of the story/play preferred within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is severely damaged/discredited by the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends;
- The narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ remains within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (being anchored by appeal to the sheer sovereignty of ‘God’), but now minus the (D)euteronomic reduction of human experience to a ‘righteous are blessed and unrighteous are cursed’ equation;
- The narrator’s whirlwind alternative to the simplistic theology common to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is somewhat analogous to the shift from the Homeric stories of the gods to Greek philosophy (from Socrates through Zeno);
- The narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ undercuts the radical (i.e., to the root) ‘scrapheap’ insights of Job;
- If the narrator is responsible for the official text having the last paragraph (either by writing it or allowing it), then the narrator makes room for the retention of the simplistic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/theology as well as for consideration of the radical intention/result of the ‘scrapheap’ perspective on spirituality/ethics/theology (affirmed in 42:7-9) inherent in the extended section with the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.
