Re ‘Jesus’ -- a method is needed that (1) distinguishes ‘Jesus’ from the prima facie impressions left by the four Gospels (e.g., Maccoby’s The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity), (2) delineates the place of ‘religion’ for ‘Jesus’ (e.g., birth place/family, synagogue upbringing, religious ceremonies, custom of attending synagogue services, interest in the Temple, familiarity with scripture texts, . . .), (3) delineates ‘non-religious’ dimensions in ‘Jesus’ (e.g., immediacy of the presence of ‘God’, open-air vs. institutional settings in which to meet/teach, the Sermon on the Mount themes, his death, . . .).
There are at least three ways to read Job -- (1) focus on ‘God’, with the Accuser and Job interpreted in light of such emphasis, (2) focus on the Accuser, with ‘God’ and Job interpreted in light of such emphasis, (3) focus on Job, with ‘God’ and the Accuser interpreted in light of such emphasis.
What influence do/should choices re professional and personal paths have on experiencing pressure -- at the paradigm level -- from the harsh realities innocent suffering?
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s self-defense and strained grip on his integrity represent the beginnings of an approach to spirituality based on his strengths. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is weighted toward a spirituality based on a low/weak self-understanding, with the result that either ‘God’ is relevant only to one’s weakness/es or weakness becomes the essential/full truth about one’s self. Affirmation of and appeal to human strength/s are heard within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as pride heading toward spiritual/theological self-destruction.
Re “time and chance govern (happen to) all” (Eccl. 9:11) -- I understand the reference to time to mean timing. ‘Govern’ and ‘happen to’ translate a Hebrew verb that means to encounter, to meet, to befall. Does this word point to an earlier stage in the development of Hebrew thought when chance was considered to be present/manifest in human experience? when ‘God’ had not been figured out as per the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? when the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm did not yet exist? Or does this word point to a later challenge to the established ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
Does chance have a place in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? No. Is the “time and chance govern (happen to) all” proverb repeated/reflected elsewhere in Jewish or Christian scripture? No. From the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, Koheleth is simply wrong. At best the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm allows that ‘God’ decides the ultimate fate of an individual, but that the method/experience of that fate can be executed in a variety of ways. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s adherents attribute events not explained by the paradigm to mystery.
Job begins with a series of tragic reports of death and devastation. Then after months of futility (7:3), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical deterioration leaves him dirty, foul breathed, a mere shadow of his former frame. Food has no taste. The nights drag on. He can read abandonment, fear, ridicule in the eyes of friends, relatives, colleagues. There are several ways to enter the story – e.g.,
There are at least three ways to read Job -- (1) focus on ‘God’, with the Accuser and Job interpreted in light of such emphasis, (2) focus on the Accuser, with ‘God’ and Job interpreted in light of such emphasis, (3) focus on Job, with ‘God’ and the Accuser interpreted in light of such emphasis.
What influence do/should choices re professional and personal paths have on experiencing pressure -- at the paradigm level -- from the harsh realities innocent suffering?
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s self-defense and strained grip on his integrity represent the beginnings of an approach to spirituality based on his strengths. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is weighted toward a spirituality based on a low/weak self-understanding, with the result that either ‘God’ is relevant only to one’s weakness/es or weakness becomes the essential/full truth about one’s self. Affirmation of and appeal to human strength/s are heard within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as pride heading toward spiritual/theological self-destruction.
Re “time and chance govern (happen to) all” (Eccl. 9:11) -- I understand the reference to time to mean timing. ‘Govern’ and ‘happen to’ translate a Hebrew verb that means to encounter, to meet, to befall. Does this word point to an earlier stage in the development of Hebrew thought when chance was considered to be present/manifest in human experience? when ‘God’ had not been figured out as per the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? when the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm did not yet exist? Or does this word point to a later challenge to the established ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
Does chance have a place in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? No. Is the “time and chance govern (happen to) all” proverb repeated/reflected elsewhere in Jewish or Christian scripture? No. From the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, Koheleth is simply wrong. At best the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm allows that ‘God’ decides the ultimate fate of an individual, but that the method/experience of that fate can be executed in a variety of ways. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s adherents attribute events not explained by the paradigm to mystery.
Job begins with a series of tragic reports of death and devastation. Then after months of futility (7:3), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical deterioration leaves him dirty, foul breathed, a mere shadow of his former frame. Food has no taste. The nights drag on. He can read abandonment, fear, ridicule in the eyes of friends, relatives, colleagues. There are several ways to enter the story – e.g.,
- The question “Does Job fear God for nothing?” leads to an interpretation of tragic experiences as a test of integrity (defined as the coherence of one’s actions over a lifetime). Job is not charged with vices. Instead, he is suspected of being double-minded in his virtues. Why does the Accuser think he can win the prologue wager?
- The vow “For better or worse” leads to an attempt to see the story/play from the perspective of Job’s wife. Particular attention – unfortunately absent in the story/play -- should be given to the multiple complications faced daily by the spouses of profound sufferers.
- Realizing that good intentions can fail leads to a description/interpretation of the inability of Job’s spiritual community, including his closest friends, to remain loyal to him.
- The claim “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” leads into an examination of the border that separates pre-scientific and scientific (or modern) understandings of life experiences, with particular attention given to the expanding technological/medicinal ways we now give and take away life.
The only time or place where conversations ever ring unambiguously true to me is a time or place that is separate from the language, the liturgy, and the theology taken for granted by every ‘religious’ community with which I am familiar.
