The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #275

[July 2006 journal entry]
Would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be justified in expecting or insisting that his three close friends enter the spiritual/theological meltdown with him? I have found myself for many years struggling to figure out how to be with others without pulling them into such a meltdown. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is being swept into a spiritual/theological meltdown and is hopeless (from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective) whereas his three close friends (consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) are clinging to the more hopeful idea of being refined or having character built by ‘God’ through such suffering. For many years, I have been using ‘meltdown’ as a metaphorical description of the experience that drove the shift from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’ for me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #274

[July 2006 journal entry]
The three close friends are soon saying, “All bets are off. This is not what we had in mind by ‘adversity’.” Their kindness dissolves. They assume a posture loyal to ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) that supersedes, reshapes, and diminishes their loyalty to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. In other words, they could not be loyal to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without being disloyal to ‘God’ (who, they all – including Job -- agree, has withdrawn from Job) and without validating/endorsing the meltdown of ‘God’ language for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job should realize/anticipate their confusion and let his three close friends off the hook, freeing them to depart or to commit themselves afresh with their eyes now fully open to the severe and tragic realities of human suffering.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #273

[July 2006 journal entry]

I can imagine conversations prior, to the story/play prologue tragedies, between Job and his three close friends in which they had made unconditional promises of loyalty to each other. And I can imagine the public comments Job and his three close friends had made re ‘friendship’. The first words from the ‘scrapheap’ Job to his three close friends (ch. 3) abruptly begin to test their friendships down into the root. What had the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends inferred from observing him in silence for days? Are they already feeling the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm wobble/buckle underneath them?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #272

[July 2006 journal entry]
My view of Proverbs wisdom is that such wisdom does not fully/indiscriminately/deeply consider tragic human suffering. The wisdom in Proverbs does not appear to have been carved out of serious/radical engagement with the harsh realities of human suffering. The three close friends can no longer consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be wise. What is the counsel in Proverbs re treating ‘fools’? Do the three close friends follow such wisdom in their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #271

[July 2006 journal entry]
What should a true friend’s loyalty imply? Are there any limits? The answers are pivotal. A ‘yes’ leads the friend safely back to the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. A ‘no’ leads the friend to a ‘non-religious’ path that is essentially/radically separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #270

[July 2006 journal entry]

The Hebrew wording for 6:14 is – “For the one who despairs, from his friends, steadfast love; and the fear of Shaddai he forsakes.” The ‘he’ would seem to refer to the one who despairs, with ‘despair’ further defined as forsaking/abandoning ‘God’. The singular ‘he’ would not agree with the plural ‘friends’. 6:14 is the only place where the Hebrew word for ‘steadfast love’ or ‘loving kindness’ occurs in Job. The word does not occur in Ecclesiastes.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #269

[July 2006 journal entry]

How should 6:14 be translated? I am drawn to Peterson’s “When desperate people give up on God Almighty, their friends, at least, should stick with them” (which follows the NIV). The RSV has “Those who withhold kindness from a friend forsake the fear of the Almighty”. This translation seems awkward and quite out of sync with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. Peterson’s linking “give up on God Almighty” with “desperate people” rather than with “friends” makes far more sense, has far more force. The RSV translation sounds more like a generalizing proverb than a pained statement by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #268

[July 2006 journal entry]

If the ‘scrapheap’ Job has some such proverb in mind, his being abandoned by his wider circle of friends weakens the proverb’s credibility. As his wider circle of friends disappears, the proverb’s credibility depends on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. The implications of their failure to meet the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s expectation of friendship (6:14) are existentially as well as theologically profound.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #267

[July 2006 journal entry]

What attitudes/emotions should be attributed to the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14) toward friendship? as represented by his three close friends? Who does he have in mind in this challenging view of ‘friend’ – a wider circle of individuals he would call ‘friends’ with a corresponding shallow expectation? or his smaller/inner circle of close friends with a corresponding deep/profound expectation? Is he repeating a familiar proverb? There are three possible parallels in Proverbs for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s remarkable statement about friendship -- (1) “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (17:17), (2) “There are friends who pretend to be friends, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (18:24), (3) “Wealth brings many new friends, but a poor man is deserted by his friend” (19:4). Note that the phrase ‘by his friend’ in the third parallel with Proverbs is identical to the wording used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #266

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (6:11b) has “future” (RSV “end”). What future/end has motivated the ‘scrapheap’ Job to this point? Is he confirming what the Accuser proposes in the prologue – i.e., that Job’s noble behavior prior to his tragedies had been motivated by self-serving ambitions? Yes. Are self-serving ambitions characteristic of ‘religion’ and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes. A ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality – which I do not find represented by any character (‘God’ included) in the story/play -- is centered by goals and values other than self-serving ambitions.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #265

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson translates the ‘scrapheap’ Job to say -- “I’d at least have the satisfaction of not having blasphemed the Holy God, before being pressed past the limits” (6:10). Peterson’s “satisfaction” seems a bit weak when compared with the RSV’s “I would even exult in unrelenting pain”. Peterson’s ‘not yet’ suggestion about cursing ‘God’ seems on target re the direction and pace of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. If the RSV translation is followed, what “words of the Holy One” does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind? What would it mean to deny such words? To deny “words of the Holy One” – as variously understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- would put the ‘scrapheap’ Job outside his ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community. Would any of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends stay with him? Peterson’s translation is very free flowing, but captures the basic meaning. However, the reference to unrelenting pain in the Hebrew wording should be retained. The ‘scrapheap’ Job senses how close he is to crossing the line. Given more time, will he curse ‘God’ as the Accuser predicts in the prologue of the play/story?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #264

[July 2006 journal entry]

Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expect/demand the cowering and the silence implied by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:5-7) and demonstrated by the prologue Job as well as the whirlwind section’s ending? Yes. They might respond initially in defiance, but a individuals and communities committed to seeing world events and human experiences through the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expect (pressure) the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs eventually (1) to accept the pain/suffering – however tragic and profound -- as the intent/will of ‘God’ and, therefore, as just and as beyond question and (2) to repent of the initial defiance.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #263

[July 2006 journal entry]

Here (6:1-7) is the second reference to “God Almighty” (Peterson) or “the Almighty” (RSV). The meaning of Shaddai is debated – e.g., ‘mountain one’, ‘almighty’, ‘powerful one’. BDB suggest a possible derivation from a verb that means to deal violently with, to despoil, to devastate, to ruin. If presented as a play, how should the ‘scrapheap’ Job utter “God Almighty” – cynically? fearfully? defiantly? I vote for a defiant tone. Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, how does ‘almighty’ relate to ‘sovereign’? to ‘just’/‘righteous’? to ‘mercy’? It seems clear the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not pointing to ‘God Almighty’ for a demonstration of ‘might for right’ (i.e., King Arthur’s radical vision in Camelot). The emphasis is certainly on having power rather than on being just or being righteous or having mercy.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #262

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job is convinced his resources have been all but depleted by ‘God’. Peterson has “Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!” (6:13). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has no ear for such reassurance as -- “You will not be tested above that which you are able to bear”. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is crumbling around the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The paradigm’s defenders eventually argue that individuals who wither rather than grow under such punishment/discipline turn from ‘God’. They might also argue the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not trying to see the good the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm promises will come from his tragedy.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #261

[July 2006 journal entry]

What is the hope, the end, the future about which the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks in these questions? The immediate context suggests he is longing/searching for the answer to his prayer (6:8-9). However, I see him thinking more broadly. If so, what does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm claim to offer the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Perhaps a renewed life if he repents? Perhaps a deeper spiritual life if he can withstand the educational experience of his suffering? To the contrary, the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no prize (including the bounty described in the epilogue) that can be worth this trauma.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #260

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions (6:11-12) sound rhetorical. Is he posing these questions to his three close friends? If so, does he think they hear the questions as rhetorical? No doubt the three close friends see a glorious prize awaiting them if they succeed in getting the ‘scrapheap’ Job to repent.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #259

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (6:10c) has “blasphemed” (RSV “denied”) and (6:14) “give up” (RSV “forsake”). Are these terms equivalent to cursing ‘God’? ‘Denied’ can mean to conceal or to cover as well as to rebel. The ‘scrapheap’ Job may think he has not yet cursed ‘God’, but he senses he is very close. Peterson is correct to accent this implication with “before being pressed past the limits” (6:10).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #258

[July 2006 journal entry]

Remember the ‘whose hand is afflicting Job’ back-and-forth between ‘God’ and the Accuser in the prologue? The ‘scrapheap’ Job reveals his conclusion about this dispute in his wish that ‘God’ would “let loose his hand” (RSV). I wonder how Job’s wife hears this prayer. Perhaps as -- “He’s coming around to my view of this mess?” Does she now empathize with him? Does she hear his prayer as an accusation against ‘God’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #257

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s “squash me like a bug” is vivid. But the RSV seems to sustain the bluntness of the prayer better with “crush me”. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s view of what ‘pleases God’ include an appeal to be squashed/crushed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have a place for a death wish? Is the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s appeal serious? Such an appeal challenges the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. If the ‘scrapheap’ Job is hoping to end it all, he is saying, “Why not let those arrows hit a vital organ and just take me out? Show some mercy in your wrath.” However, it is also possible to read him as not yet serious. He may still want to accuse ‘God’ to his face.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #256

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job now (6:8-13) seems clearly on the edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Interpreting his thoughts as sarcastic, ironic, even cynical would not be premature or inappropriate.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #255

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s next question – “Do you see what God has dished out for me?” -- a food may not taste good but can still be eaten for nourishment without nausea. However, the ‘scrapheap’ Job adds another forceful analogy – nausea (6:6-7). This analogy is particularly significant in light of the place this metaphor holds in existential thought about the human predicament. The staging/directing needs to make vivid to the audience that the ‘scrapheap’ Job is nauseated by what ‘God’ “has dished out”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #254

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job turns to animal analogies (6:5). How common are such analogies other than in the story/play’s whirlwind section? ‘Wild ass’ appears also in 11:12 and 39:5. ‘Ox’ appears in 24:3. Peterson’s “so don’t expect me to keep quiet in this” makes explicit the implication in these analogies. What makes a wild ass bray or an ox low over its food? the scarcity? the taste? The lack of satisfaction and contentment? If it would be possible to say the following to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him or falling in with his three close friends, I would look for a way to say to him, “Yes, I do expect more from a human being than I expect from a donkey or a cow.”

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #253

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (6:4c) has “God has dumped the whole works on me” (RSV “the terrors of God are arrayed against me”). Peterson’s translation seems weak, almost trivializing. The Hebrew wording is as forceful as the RSV translation, if not more so. How the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees the terrors arrayed around him is important. The terrors have been carefully positioned. He is surrounded with strategically selected terrors that are aimed at particularly vulnerable areas. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is not thinking ‘God’ has dumped these terrors on him; he is thinking ‘God’ has organized them into a massive, orderly, and devastating offensive against him.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #252

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job offers analogies and metaphors (6:1-3) in line with the appeal with which he begins his response to Eliphaz. However, in doing so he seems to be moving quickly (unavoidably?) to the edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to a theological position the guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (represented in the story/play by the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends) find heretical and he finds untenable. What meaning/s does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm sanction for the phrase “the arrows of God”? Surely not the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s contention that ‘God’ shoots poison arrows into innocent persons. The ‘scrapheap’ Job describes his thoughts/words as poisoned and attributes his poisoned condition to ‘God’. The ‘scrapheap’ Job knows he is on the edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – far removed from the core/center – as/when he attributes his current status to the direct and calculated action of ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #251

[July 2006 journal entry]

With due regard for the severity of his situation, I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job is excessive in his assessment of his misery’s weight. His conclusion that his misery outweighs the sand of the sea sounds as if he thinks no other person’s pain/suffering could be (has been) as heavy as is his pain/suffering. At the same time, I shy away from seeking relief in “there’s always someone worse off than I”. There are serious risks when any sufferer thinks s/he is in the worst situation possible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #250

[July 2006 journal entry]

Vexation makes me think of spiritual/intellectual pain. Misery makes room for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical/social suffering. The ‘scrapheap’ Job seems to claim both forms of agony during his responses. Are both forms of agony present here?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #249

[July 2006 journal entry]

A word study for “misery” (Peterson) or “vexation” (RSV) would be useful. The Hebrew word (6:2a) occurs in Job (5:2, 6:2, 10:17, 17:7) in one form and in Ecclesiastes (1:18, 2:23, 7:3, 7:9, 11:10) in another form. The idea is unwarranted pain/suffering. The word for “load” (Peterson) or “calamity” (RSV) (6:2b) -- used only here -- is based on the Hebrew verb ‘to be’, from which the word ‘God’ is derived.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #248

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s wording suggests the ‘scrapheap’ Job is aggressive and energetic – e.g., an exclamation point (6:3a) and “Is it any wonder that I’m screaming like a caged cat?” (6:3b). The RSV suggests a more subdued/fatigued ‘scrapheap’ Job – “Oh” (6:2) and “Therefore my words have been rash” (6:3b). I would stage the ‘scrapheap’ Job more along the RSV’s subdued/fatigued line. Perhaps I think Peterson is a bit off the mark because I do not hear the ‘scrapheap’ Job screaming in his first remarks (or having enough strength to scream at any point, for that matter). The Hebrew word means to talk wildly. The verb occurs only three times (Prov. 20:25 and Obadiah 16 as well as Job 6:3). If the RSV’s “rash” is followed, is the ‘scrapheap’ Job making a confession? or offering an explanation that invites his three close friends to show him some tolerance and that asks them not to take his words too seriously? If so, then he is not yet to the point of having thought fully/radically through the theological implications of attributing his situation to ‘God’. Another angle is to hear sarcasm when the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #247

[July 2006 journal entry]

Does the word for “answered” (6:1) refer specifically to questioning/answering? to dialogue? Or might the word simply suggest the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks, whether to Eliphaz or to himself or . . . ? He has sharp words for Eliphaz (and subsequently for Bildad and Zophar). If the story is being staged as a play, should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be looking at Eliphaz or to the heavens or, perhaps, toward the audience? Everyone has abandoned him, with his three close friends now beginning to place responsibility for his plight squarely on his shoulders. Looking to the audience implies the ‘scrapheap’ Job is searching for someone who can/will truly/clearly/patiently listen. Looking to the audience presses each one in the audience to ask if s/he can/will be the character missing in the story/play – i.e., the character whose presence with the ‘scrapheap’ Job does not harm him further. Or perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job just stares aimlessly, indicating he no longer has any confidence there is such a character.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #246

[July 2006 journal entry]

How can Eliphaz look at the ‘scrapheap’ Job and say that, regardless of the trouble, “the evil can’t touch you” (5:19)? Eliphaz sounds (5:20ff) as if he is singing a hymn (e.g., ‘It Is Well With My Soul’). He sounds as shocking and insensitive as that hymn sounds to me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #245

[July 2006 journal entry]

How can anyone (5:21) “be protected from vicious gossip” (Peterson) or “be hid from the scourge of the tongue” (RSV)? With gossip about the ‘scrapheap’ Job surely rampant, Eliphaz reveals his conclusion about his close friend.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #244

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is the Hebrew word for “deliver” (Peterson) or “redeem” (RSV) used elsewhere with a spiritualized meaning? The verb means to ransom and occurs in 6:23 (Job) and 33:28 (Elihu). Outside the story/play, the word is used to refer to ‘God’ delivering Israel from Egypt (Deut. 7:8, 13:6), from exile (Jer. 31:11), and in general (Hos. 7:13) as well as delivering specific individuals (Isa. 29:22).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #243

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Eliphaz saying a blessed (righteous) person (5:17) never starves in famine or is never wounded/killed in war? His confidence that, regardless of how tragic or ghastly the experience, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works leads him to make predictions (5:19ff) that are (especially in the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s presence!) self-evidently false, indefensible, and outlandish. Is he faithfully representing the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Some might say Eliphaz is speaking in hyperbole. However, his closing claim – “Yes, this is the way things are, my word of honor!” (Peterson) – seems to me to argue against a hyperbolic interpretation.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #242

[July 2006 journal entry]

‘Trouble’ (3:17) appears often in the story/play. Here the wicked are blamed for causing trouble. Are there other sources? The ‘scrapheap’ Job focuses on ‘God’ as the source of his trouble. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm lead to this view? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or any other character in the story/play draw on the idea of the Accuser as the ultimate source of such trouble?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #241

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Eliphaz (5:20) attributing famine and war to the will of ‘God’ too? How do those loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm avoid this deduction? This same question applies to all the tragic circumstances referenced by Eliphaz. Does the view attributed to ‘Jesus’ re ‘God’ causing rain to fall on the just and unjust (Matthew 5:43-48) include devastating hurricanes, typhoons, flooding, . . ?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #240

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Eliphaz associating (equating?) trouble with evil? What would doing so imply for the concept of ‘God’ in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Is Eliphaz admitting here that the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s tragedies are in essence/fact evil? Perhaps, rather than ontological evil, he considers the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight evil because he is in obvious pain. However, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attributes both good and evil to ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #239

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (5:19) uses “disaster” and “calamity” (RSV “trouble”). The Hebrew word means straits or distress. The word occurs also in 27:9 (Job), 7:11 (Job), 15:24 (Eliphaz), 36:16 (Elihu), 36:19 (Elihu), and 38:23 (‘God’) as well as twenty-four times in the Psalms. The word does not appear in the prologue to the story/play.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #238

[July 2006 journal entry]

Why does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ wound or smite? The word translated ‘wound’ means pain. The pain can be either physical or mental. In this text, the causative is used (i.e., to cause pain). The verb form occurs in 14:22 (Job). The word translated ‘smite’ means to wound severely, to shatter. The word also occurs in 26:12 (Job). Eliphaz may have ‘tough love’ in mind. However, I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job is thinking of ‘God’ more in terms of a chronically penitent alcoholic parent who harms when intoxicated. Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) seems to be thinking along similar lines with his conclusion that there is no consistency in whether or not the ‘hand of God’ crushes or cradles what it holds.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #237

[July 2006 journal entry]

A word study for ‘despise’ would be helpful. The word – which carries the idea of being rejected -- occurs a few times in the story/play, most often used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- 7:16 (Job), 8:20 (Bildad), 9:21 (Job), 10:3 (Job), 19:18 (Job;), 30:1 (Job), 31:13 (Job).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #236

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz introduces the “correction”/“discipline” motif to explain the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight. Has this line of thought been used previously by Eliphaz? Is this interpretation used subsequently in the story/play? What place does this motif have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? The word for ‘correction’ occurs throughout the story -- 6:25-26 (Job), 9:33 (Job), 13:10, 15 (Job), 15:3 (Eliphaz), 16:21 (Job), 19:5 (Job), 22:4 (Eliphaz), 23:7 (Job), 32:12 (Elihu), 40:2 (‘God’). The word for ‘discipline’ occurs less often -- 20:3 (Zophar), 33:16 (Elihu), though it is found frequently in Proverbs. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm holds the ‘correction’/‘discipline’ motif as a trump card to explain suffering that seems at odds with the paradigm – e.g., if the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not being punished, perhaps he is being blessed with suffering to make him a better person and prepare him for greater use by and honor from ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #235

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz shifts to repeated references to ‘you’ (5:17ff). Is he speaking specifically to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Or is it possible he is climbing oratorical heights, with the ‘scrapheap’ Job falling further and further out of focus? I think the latter.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #234

[July 2006 journal entry]

As a transition signal, Peterson (5:17-18) has “So” (RSV “Behold”). Is Eliphaz drawing his conclusions from his immediately preceding statements? Or does he look back to the beginning of his response to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? ‘Behold’ is a better translation than ‘so’ if the latter implies that what follows is a logical deduction from or consequence of what has gone before. Eliphaz changes tactics near the end of his argument. Some have suggested translations such as ‘look’ or ‘listen up’. It seems to me Eliphaz is grasping for something positive to say to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Perhaps to his surprise, he thinks he has stumbled upon it -- i.e., ‘God’ is making Job a better, stronger person!

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #233

[July 2006 journal entry]

The word translated ‘hope’ in 5:16a is the same word translated ‘hope’ in 4:6. This word appears often in the story/play, mostly used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job – 6:8 (Job), 7:6 (Job), 8:13 (Bildad), 11:18, 20 (Zophar), 14:7 (Job), 14:19 (Job), 17:15 (Job), 19:10 (Job), 27:8 (Job), 41:9 (‘God’). In trying to follow the line of thought in 5:10-16, I come away with the following -- Eliphaz begins with a reference to a non-discriminating relation between ‘God’ and human experience that he finds suggested in weather patterns (5:10). But he then abruptly shifts to and lingers with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘the righteous are blessed; the wicked cursed’ premise. Where do these statements (and the preceding set of statements) leave the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- stricken by fate? among the poor? among those deserving punishment?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #232

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (5:11b) has “gives firm footing to those sinking in grief” (RSV “those who mourn are lifted to safety”). Peterson captures the essence of the Hebrew wording. But the word ‘safety’ in this text should not be missed. The word stems from the root for ‘salvation’. Eliphaz is challenging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to save himself by becoming lowly in repentance and mourning his sin. The Hebrew wording here is not similar to the 4:4a wording. Note that, for Eliphaz and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, repenting and mourning mean confessing guilt (and, therefore, absolving ‘God’) to which ‘God’ responds by again drawing near in a protective (rather than attacking) manner. In other words, repenting and mourning saves one from ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #231

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz argues (5:10-16) ‘God’ is the defender/protector of the “down and out” (RSV “lowly”), “those sinking in grief” (RSV “who mourn”), the “downtrodden” (RSV “fatherless”), and the “needy” (RSV “needy”) against the wiles of “conniving crooks” (RSV “the crafty”) and the “know-it-alls” (RSV “wise”). Is there a clue yet as to where Eliphaz is placing the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Or is he caught up in his oratory, oblivious to how the ‘scrapheap’ Job might be hearing him? I would definitely cast him as caught up in his oratory. If he places the ‘scrapheap’ Job, perhaps a hint is found in his proposition that “the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth” (5:16). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has suffered financial reversals. However, there is no reason to place him among the poor. So Eliphaz may already be deducing that the ‘scrapheap’ Job must be a purveyor of injustices against the poor. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is then one of those crooks and know-it-alls from whose clutches (v. 15) Eliphaz believes ‘God’ saves the poor. Is it possible Eliphaz has been jealous of the prologue Job’s extremely good fortune?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #230

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Eliphaz (5:12ff) suggesting the ‘scrapheap’ Job is the victim of a plot, a conspiracy, an intrigue? But then (5:17ff) he introduces the discipline explanation (i.e., “this is for your good”) for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s situation. How deep are the roots of this explanation in Jewish thought? What is the etymology/meaning of the Hebrew word translated (by Peterson and the RSV) as “despise”?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #229

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz begins with a ‘God’ who acts indiscriminately (5:10) and then moves to a ‘God’ with special interests in “the down and out” (5:11). It is as if ‘God’ is just and, if he veers, he veers toward mercy. But then Eliphaz quickly settles back into the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ against evildoers.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #228

[July 2006 journal entry]

The reference to “no end” (RSV “without number”) conveys the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s confidence that such acts by ‘God’ far outnumber the tragic events or experiences that are anomalous to the paradigm. Given a modern/scientific view of reality, I do not attribute showers (5:10) to the direct/intentional will of ‘God’. Nor do I agree the stories from which divine justice and divine mercy might be inferred far outnumber the stories from which divine injustice and divine cruelty might be inferred. The representatives/guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm can be counted on to tally the former stories (e.g., experiences that are classified as ‘a God story’). Is there evidence they tally the latter stories? I have not found such evidence. What counts as a story of justice and mercy? of injustice and cruelty? A spectrum would help clarify the variations within these two classifications of stories.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #227

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz (5:8-9) calls the acts of ‘God’ “great” (Peterson and RSV) and “unexpected” (RSV “unsearchable”). He claims, “There is no end to his surprises” (RSV “marvelous things without number”). Is Eliphaz saying such acts are illogical or inconsistent within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? that ‘God’ errs toward mercy? If so, this point underscores his argument that the ‘scrapheap’ Job deserves his plight and should admit his corruption. Eliphaz will not consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s contention that ‘God’ can also be harsher than deserved, lashing out and destroying for no reason.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #226

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (5:8-9) has “I’d go straight to God” (RSV “I would seek God”). He seems to be playing off of the 5:1 wording. Peterson has “I’d throw myself on the mercy of God” (RSV “to God I would commit my cause”). The Hebrew wording supports ‘cause’ rather than ‘mercy’. Mercy has not been previously introduced in the story/play. If Eliphaz has mercy in mind, he develops the idea in appeals to nature (5:10), to a safety net for the lowly (5:11, 15-16), and to the demise of the crafty (5:12-14). What place does mercy have in the ‘religious’ T/O theological paradigm? Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, mercy begins to be nuanced with a Genesis 1-2 type reflection on creation (not the more candid Ecclesiastes type reflections on creation, to which I assign greater weight). ‘God’ is thought to make life operate in an orderly cause and effect manner. Mercy might also refer to the leeway ‘God’ permits to those living within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. For instance, ‘God’ may delay discipline or judgment (e.g., texts in Jewish scripture that suggest ‘God’ waited centuries before punishing Israel and then Judah).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #225

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (5:8-9) has “If I were in your shoes” (RSV “As for me”). Literally, the Hebrew text reads, “But, I, I would seek to God”, with the ‘I’ emphasized. ‘But’ is a very strong transition, indicating “You might do this, but I would do something entirely different, perhaps opposite”. Can Eliphaz possibly imagine/grasp being discarded on a ‘scrapheap’? He mentions no comparable experience/s.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #224

[July 2006 journal entry]

By 5:8ff, Eliphaz is completely out of touch with the ‘scrapheap’ Job, whose responses play off Eliphaz’s disconnection by taking so many of his words/metaphors in directions opposite to Eliphaz’s intentions. Eliphaz is determined to keep the ‘scrapheap’ Job from questioning ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #223

[July 2006 journal entry]

Does the view expressed in the Psalms (e.g., 51:5) that human beings are born in sin – or, so to speak, with the cards stacked against them – indicate the idea of some sort of ‘Fall’ was in circulation? In Christian scripture, James (1:14-15) places all temptation and sin at the feet of humans. With the cards stacked against human beings, very few (if any) would enjoy a trouble-free life. Is this line of thought not crosswise with the (D)euteronomic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #222

[July 2006 journal entry]

I agree we often (but not always) bring trouble on others and ourselves. However, I would argue autonomous human freedom/will is not essential or weight bearing within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- which instead reduces human experiences finally to the will of ‘God’. Eliphaz seems to be saying, not that humans exercise freedom in damaging ways, but that humans are by nature the source of their trouble. Is Eliphaz attributing trouble and humans being “born and bred for trouble” to ‘God’? Where in Jewish scripture is this view of human nature found? Did ‘the Fall’ originate in Jewish thought or is ‘the Fall’ a Christian teaching conceived to put ‘God’ at least one step removed from responsibility for the trouble human beings experience? It is not surprising debate became so intense among the Christian guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re whether ‘the Fall’ was truly/essentially an exercise of human freedom. It should be noted that interpreting Genesis 3 as a literal space/time ‘Fall’ from spiritual innocence implies and necessitates a pre-modern/pre-scientific cosmology.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #221

[July 2006 journal entry]

‘Fate’ suggests aimless predetermination or chance. ‘Nowhere’ has cosmological significance. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have such concepts? Or is Eliphaz denying such concepts? For him and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, ‘fate’ and ‘nowhere’ are not realities. All is (divine) cause and (human) effect. Eliphaz traces (5:7) trouble to its origin -- “It’s human!” (Peterson). But “born and bred for trouble” (Peterson) and “born to trouble” (RSV) push the origin of trouble beyond/before individual choice to divine predetermination.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #220

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson has “Don’t blame fate when things go wrong -- trouble doesn’t come from nowhere” (5:6). The RSV has “come from the dust” for Peterson’s “fate” and “sprout from the ground” for Peterson’s “nowhere”. Peterson captures the idea. Eliphaz argues trouble does not arise on its own. Trouble is more like a crop that is intentionally sown.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #219

[July 2006 journal entry]

The word “trouble” appears again (5:6). The Hebrew word occurs several times in the story/play (3:10, 4:8, 5:6, 5:7, 7:3, 11:16, 15:35, 16:2). The word does not appear in the whirlwind ‘God’ section. Nor is the word used by Elihu or in the epilogue. The word is a favorite for Koheleth in Ecclesiastes, whose use of the word is most often translated ‘toil’ or ‘labor’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #218

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz seems reconciled to the collateral victims (e.g., children, employees, neighbors, . . .) in the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s calamities. He seems reconciled to their suffering. Thinking this way certainly blunts the breadth of human suffering.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #217

[July 2006 journal entry]

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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #216

[July 2006 journal entry]

“Their children out in the cold, abused and exploited, with no one to stick up for them” (5:4) -- painfully vivid.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #215

[July 2006 journal entry]

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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #214

[July 2006 journal entry]

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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #213

[July 2006 journal entry]

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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #212

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 strongest word for ‘fool’. But he is still slapping the ‘scrapheap’ Job with his own verdict concerning his problems. The stronger word for ‘fool’ never occurs in the story/play. Is that because the author of the dialogues realizes the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not a fool in the stronger sense, but in fact speaks courageously what is true?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #211

[July 2006 journal entry]

From 5:1 forward, Eliphaz increasingly loses touch with 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).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #210

[July 2006 journal entry]

4:17-18 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 occurs without justification? Does Eliphaz accurately represent the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in suggesting that ‘God’ does not trust any being (4:18)? Is saying “God is righteous” anthropomorphic? Yes. And Eliphaz’s reference to ‘God’ having servants (attendants?) is clearly sociomorphic.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #209

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz says ‘God’ is angry (4:9) in response to evil. The ‘scrapheap’ Job no longer sees 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 ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #208

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s wording describes Job as being known for having “spoken words that clarify”, for having “encouraged those who were about to quit” (4:3). What about this wording? Is the purpose of instructing 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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #207

[July 2006 journal entry]

How is death viewed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Jewish theology? within the story/play Job? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments about death (3:13ff) present the first description of death in the story/play. Subsequent descriptions of death need to be tracked through the story/play. How do these descriptions of death 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 rather benign experiences Eliphaz associates with the death of the blessed.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #206

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson switches (4:20-21) in his translation from third-person pronouns to first-person pronouns. However, the third-person is used through 4:21 in the Hebrew text. Who is speaking in the ‘blur’? in a ‘muffled voice’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #205

[July 2006 journal entry]

The next thoughts from Eliphaz about ‘God’ (4:18-19) -- which suggest remoteness and a lack of care -- further distance humans from ‘God’. What link exists between these thoughts and the preceding references to the superior righteousness and purity of ‘God’? What do these thoughts imply about ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Is the ‘God’ acknowledged within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm an inconsistent and paranoid despot (eerily similar to the mentally disturbed King Saul in need of a youthful David to play the lyre)?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #204

[July 2006 journal entry]

To say that standards for defining righteousness and purity are not applicable to ‘God’ is to take an easy (but, as the ‘scrapheap’ Job realizes, a frightening) way out. Representatives or guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm grant each other this easy way out. A ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics and spirituality neither seeks nor accepts an easy way out, but instead turns away from the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #203

[July 2006 journal entry]

If ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) is righteous within relationships, then this ‘God’ certainly operates by different standards than the standards the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects humans to follow in their treatment of others. Does the purity attributed to ‘God’ come from being wholly other (i.e., pure because ‘God’ is different, untouched by the world) or is the purity attributed to ‘God’ moral as well? Job’s tragic experiences and the wider/deeper realities of human suffering would seem to say this ‘God’ is neither righteous nor pure by the standards to which the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects humans to follow in their treatment of others.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #202

[July 2006 journal entry]

The terms ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’ (4:17) are very common terms. Peterson’s use of ‘more’ captures the Hebrew comparative. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in fact build around concepts of ‘God’ as righteous and pure? If so, then what do the breadth and depth of innocent human suffering imply about the definitions of righteous and pure in reference to ‘God’? If the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm does not in fact build around such concepts, then the ‘God’ of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is above accountability and, therefore, represents a brutal ‘might makes right’ ethic.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #201

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz uses the same word for ‘dread’ (4:14) that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has just used in his first statements from the ‘scrapheap’ (3:24). The word for ‘dread’ – which appears several more times in the story/play (13:11, 15:21, 21:9, 22:10, 25:2, 31:23, 39:16, 39:22) -- often refers to the “dread of the Lord” or “fear of the Lord”. Just as often, it refers to abject terror.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #200

[July 2006 journal entry]

What place does Eliphaz’s appeal to dreams (4:12ff) have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Wisdom Literature? in Jewish theological method? in Christian theological method? His appeal to dreams is juxtaposed with his previous appeal to observation of nature. Appeals to dreams and supernatural communications carry little weight in Wisdom Literature. The most dramatic appearance of ‘God’ to Job – i.e., in the whirlwind -- is an anomaly in Jewish Wisdom Literature. The dreams of Joseph and Daniel are rare in Jewish scripture and should be considered atypical. Eliphaz seems to be making a rather desperate appeal. He reminds me of the desperate student I watched at a piano recital who, frustrated and embarrassed by her inability to complete her assigned piece, switched frantically to a few measures of a ‘boogie’ before fleeing tearfully from the piano. Eliphaz no longer speaks/acts as a ‘wise’ man. How should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be directed to act when responding to Eliphaz’s appeal to a dream – e.g., a raised eyebrow? a mystified stare?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #199

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘breath of God’ in Genesis is life giving. (The Hebrew word in Job 4:9b is used in Genesis 1; the word in Job 4:9a is not.) Is ‘the breath of God’ viewed as destructive elsewhere in Jewish scripture or Christian scripture?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #198

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Eliphaz saying ‘God’ weakens the lion? Does Wisdom Literature (e.g., Proverbs) draw from such observations of nature? Where (if at all) does a Lion King’s ‘circle of life’ or a Charlotte’s Web’s ‘Father Time’ fit in/with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #197

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Eliphaz thinking of the ‘scrapheap’ Job when he introduces the lion metaphor (4:10-11)? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job identify with this metaphor? Has he now felt the ‘breath of God’? ‘the blast of his anger’? Are his teeth now broken? Does he now lack the ability to capture prey? Are his cubs now scattered? Job’s victorious roar (descriptive of his pre-‘scrapheap’ community standing) has been silenced. He is now reduced to the plight of a lion that can no longer hunt either for itself or for its cubs, that will soon die alone in the field and return to dust. Or Eliphaz could also be interpreted here as demonstrating how, without full awareness or without intention, the oratory (e.g., hymns, prayers, sermons) of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm victimizes individual sufferers such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #196

[July 2006 journal entry]

Does Eliphaz see Job as tossed aside on the ‘scrapheap’? Would Job use such imagery about himself? Does Job use ‘perished’, ‘cut off’, ‘reap’, ‘consumed’, . . . (4:7-11) to describe his condition? He uses ‘perished’ in cursing the day he was born (3:3), but does not apply the word more directly to himself. His three close friends use ‘perish’ in reference to the fate of those who are evil. The verb ‘consumed’ (7:6, 7:9, 11:20, 17:5, 19:27, 33:21 in the active and 9:22, 21:13, 31:16, 36:11 in the intensive) is never specifically applied by the ‘scrapheap’ Job to himself. Eliphaz places the ‘scrapheap’ Job with the wicked, perhaps among the unknowingly wicked. The ‘scrapheap’ Job understands Eliphaz to be placing him among the wicked. On the other hand, the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees himself among the innocent and thus as undeserving of such punishment. He sees himself among the consumed, but not among the wicked. He is heading to his wife’s earlier conclusion -- “If ‘God’ is going to throw me on the scrapheap for no reason, I may as well die.”

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #195

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation choice of ‘scrapheap’ gets at the idea of tragic sufferers no longer being visible or remembered. What is placed on the ‘scrapheap’ has no value, is forgotten, and eventually becomes as if never having existed. The ‘scrapheap’ metaphor could be associated with a garbage dump or a landfill, with the pile of scrap material at a construction site, or with discarded food scraps.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #194

[July 2006 journal entry]

‘Truly’ and ‘genuinely’ seem to capture the way the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm makes its confirmation inevitable – i.e., by shifting blame to the pretenders. To be ‘truly innocent’ and ‘genuinely upright’ would be to accept and defend the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Peterson reinforces this point with “ever ended up on the scrapheap” (RSV’s ‘perished’) and “ever lose out in the end” (RSV’s ‘cut off’). The Hebrew word for ‘perish’ appears frequently in the story/play (3:3, 4:9, 4:11, 4:20, 6:18, 8:13, 11:20, 18:17, 20:7, 29:13, 30:2, 31:19 are all in the active voice; 12:23, intensive; 14:19, causative). The word is a general word for ‘die’. But ‘cut off’ (cf. 15:28, 22:20 in the active; 6:10, 15:18, 27:11 in the intensive; 20:12 in the causative) has more the meaning of ‘being hidden’. By using these two words together, to perish takes on the idea of vanishing (3:3, 18:7, 30:2).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #193

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (4:7) has “truly innocent” (the RSV has “innocent”) and “genuinely upright” (the RSV has “upright”). The Hebrew word for ‘innocent’ can mean clean, free from guilt, free from obligation, exempt. It occurs elsewhere in the story/play (9:23, 17:8, 22:19, 22:30, 27:17). The word can describe innocent blood (Deut. 19:10, 27:25) or one exempt from military service (Num. 32:22). The word for ‘upright’ is the same word as in the prologue.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #192

[July 2006 journal entry]

In the first telling of an experience, a person begins to engage in reconstructing the past experience (e.g., how a woman remembers childbirth after one hour, one day, one week, one month, one year, . . .). My experience with my first wife’s illness so deeply marked me that forgetting or reconstructing the experience away was not an option after her death (d. 1987). Instead, her experience remains for me a symbol of so many other tragic/humiliated sufferers then and now.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #191

[July2006 journal entry]

Thinking and remembering are difficult when fatigued, but do not thereby lack integrity.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #190

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job is now a ‘story’ – most likely ‘the story’, a headline -- added to the caravan travelers’ reports. I see the caravan travelers as representing circumspection more than heart-warming stories. The caravan travelers have time to think. And they have to accommodate different cultures. How does an Eliphaz hear the caravan travelers’ stories? An answer can be found in how he (Bildad and Zophar as well) turns a deaf ear to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The ‘scrapheap’ Job remembers and references the caravan travelers’ stories, likely regarding them as even more credible now than before tragedies had struck him.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #189

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz does not start with “just believe”. However, he and the ‘scrapheap’ Job differ radically re what/how to remember. He tries to redirect the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s focus from dwelling on exceptions that do not fit the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to dwelling on the reassuring norms of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #188

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz first turns thinking or remembering (implicitly in 4:7, explicitly in 4:8) toward observing human experience. Does/can the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerate doing so if the observing is indiscriminate rather than selective? disturbing rather than supportive? No. Instead, observing human experience is done through the filter/lens of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, resulting in explanations of what is observed that do not threaten the paradigm. Eliphaz then shifts to the insulation of a dream (4:12ff)! When in doubt, switch to special revelation claims.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #187

[July 2006 journal entry]

For a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics and spirituality -- observation must be careful, intense, unrestrained, unrestricted. Instead, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is looking selectively for support/confirmation.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #186

[July 2006 journal entry]

What place does thinking/remembering have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm permit or encourage one seriously/radically to consider experiences/data that call into question the paradigm? Or must one’s memory be guided by and exercised in ways consistent with and affirming of the paradigm? Why does Eliphaz presume the ‘scrapheap’ Job has not been thinking? How is thinking similar/different in or out of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? A pivotal point in my move away from the ‘religious’ sphere to a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality and ethics occurred with my realization that within the ‘religious’ sphere I could seriously/radically think – even raise core questions – without reprisal only as long as such inquiry ultimately and in a timely manner confirmed rather than questioned/threatened the ‘religious’ sphere (e.g., sermons, lectures, class discussions, prayers, hymns, articles, books, . . .). In other words, thinking and remembering within the ‘religious’ sphere are exercises in selective memory. As a victim/subject, the ‘scrapheap’ Job can no longer engage in selective memory without violating his integrity, misrepresenting his experience. He cannot ignore or walk away from the ‘scrapheap’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #185

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz admonishes the ‘scrapheap’ Job to ‘think’ (4:7). The Hebrew word can also be translated ‘remember’. The word also occurs in 7:7 (Job), 10:9 (Job), 11:16 (Bildad), 14:13 (Job), 21:6 (Job), 36:24 (Elihu), 40:23 (‘God’).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #184

[July 2006 journal entry]

A ‘-3 to +3’ spectrum on ‘friendship’ is needed, with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s definition of friendship (6:14) being ‘+3’ on the spectrum.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #183

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job represents individuals who have life experiences that move them steadily/harshly from feeling safely positioned in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s center to being on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s boundary or margin. Prior to his personal suffering, the ‘scrapheap’ Job may be understood to represent individuals who live their personal lives as if safely in the paradigm’s center but who see in the distance the boundary/marginalizing circumstances others face. The severely abused kids cared for at the K-Bar-B Youth Ranch represent (for me) individuals whose lives begin with boundary/marginalizing experiences.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #182

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz is arguing for an “If righteous, then blessed” equation/theology in the presence of an utterly devastated friend whom he and the public previously considered a unique model of righteousness. Would any variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm restrain Eliphaz?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #181

[July 2006 journal entry]

For dramatic effect, a pause should occur at the end of Eliphaz’s opening remarks. And then there is the question of how to present the ‘scrapheap’ Job on stage during Eliphaz’s remarks. Is he ignoring Eliphaz? Does he look hurt? surprised? angry?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #180

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Eliphaz quoting the pre-tragedy Job’s words to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? It is hardly the place or time for taunting. The three close friends are being ‘pastoral’ in the worst sense. What appears thoughtful to them, Job experiences as thoughtless. Their attempted loyalty backs the ‘scrapheap’ Job against the wall, puts him on the defensive.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #179

[July 2006 journal entry]

When heard/interpreted within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, what is Eliphaz saying (4:6) re ‘confidence’ and/or ‘hope’? Confidence and hope may be sequential rather than a parallelism. I hear Eliphaz to be counseling/urging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to “admit your sin and seek again to do right in God’s eyes. . . . There is no other way out of this mess. . . . God is just. . . . You are not.”

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #178

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz seems to endorse (4:6) the descriptions of Job that are celebrated in the prologue. The Hebrew text has a noun (‘your fear’) rather than the verb form used in the prologue. The Hebrew word translated ‘integrity’ is the same root used in the prologue. Are ‘fear of God’ and ‘integrity’ foundational to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm for considering a person great? Or do material signs of being blessed (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) lead to the deduction that the individual must, therefore, ‘fear God’ and have ‘integrity’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #177

[July 2006 journal entry]

Are there any indications in the story/play that Job has previously faced life-changing experiences with tragedy (e.g., a relative or close friend or individual for whom he cared whose illnesses, injuries, social plight, and/or aging had reduced him/her to a ‘toothless lion’ -- to use metaphor introduced by Eliphaz)? I have not yet found such indications.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #176

[July 2006 journal entry]

Perhaps ‘it’ (4:5) points to the ‘who is doing this to Job?’ dispute between ‘God’ and the Accuser in the prologue references to ‘touch’. Eliphaz introduces the category/concept of evil in his reference to ‘touch’ (5:19), just after describing ‘God’ as wounding individuals. The ‘scrapheap’ Job seems to have drawn his conclusion – “the hand of God has touched me” (19:21). Does Eliphaz’s reference to evil imply a malevolent metaphysical reality separate and independent from ‘God’? If so, such would be distinct from the Accuser in the prologue in that there the Accuser is one of the messengers and is presented as at least to some degree subservient to ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #175

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re ‘touch’ (4:5), the Hebrew word can be translated to touch, to reach, to strike. This verb is used in the story/play as follows (Peterson translation): ‘touch’ (1:11 – the Accuser), ‘struck’ (1:19 – a servant), ‘touch’ (2:5 – the Accuser), ‘touch’ (5:19 – Eliphaz), ‘touch’ (6:7 – Job), ‘touched’ (19:21 – Job), ‘reach’ (20:6 – Zophar). Note that most references associate ‘touch’ with ‘harm’. ‘Touch/ed’ is one more term among the terms found in the prologue to the story/play that are given ironic meanings in the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #174

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is ‘patience’ on the short list of virtues in Jewish thought? Does Eliphaz expect the ‘scrapheap’ Job to respond as described in the prologue (i.e., before the three close friends enter the story)? Note they are not present when Job responds in the prologue. How might they have learned of his prologue responses? Eliphaz leaves the impression that Job’s suffering is rather common. He argues that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has neither right nor reason to be impatient. The ‘scrapheap’ Job responds by restating and insisting on his right and his reason to be impatient.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #173

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation (4:5) has Eliphaz say, “you’re hurting” (the RSV’s “you are impatient”) and “you’re reeling from the blow” (the RSV’s “you are dismayed”). Peterson’s wording focuses on the emotional and even physical impact of the calamities that have struck the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The RSV’s wording points to the impact on his thinking. Eliphaz charges the ‘scrapheap’ Job with impatience. Note that, by doing so, Eliphaz undermines future Jewish and Christian traditional views of Job as the quintessential example of patience (e.g., in Daniel, The Testament of Job, and James).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #172

[July 2006 journal entry]

What is the ‘it’ that has befallen the ‘scrapheap’ Job (4:5, RSV)? Peterson’s translation has Eliphaz say, “But now you’re the one in trouble. . . . You’ve been hit hard”. Is this ‘it’ trouble? disaster? lament? loss of confidence in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Perhaps this ‘it’ should be left ambiguous. Or should the antecedent for ‘it’ be considered self-evident? The Hebrew word is feminine. The nearest feminine noun is the reference to ‘feeble knees’. Does feebleness in old age clash with the manner of dying envisioned for the blessed by the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #171

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation (4:3a) says Job has “spoken words that clarify” to sufferers (the RSV’s “instructed”). The Hebrew word/idea is to discipline, to admonish, to correct. Is ‘to instruct’ a healthy aim for responding to sufferers’ lament? to their agony? No. Efforts to clarify/explain the breadth and depth of human suffering invariably diminish and/or draw away from a respectful focus on the sufferer/s. Eliphaz apparently intends to comfort the ‘scrapheap’ Job by correcting his thinking. Is this what Job has previously attempted with sufferers? Perhaps whether to hear Job’s first words from the ‘scrapheap’ as lament gets to the crux of the three close friends’ problem. If Job’s ‘scrapheap’ thoughts are only therapeutic or liturgical lament (e.g., the ‘lament psalms’), then the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm holds. If Job’s ‘scrapheap’ thoughts represent radically (i.e., into the root) altered insights into what is true/real, then the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm does not hold.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #170

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz sets out some challenging goals for speaking to/in the presence of a sufferer such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Do the three close friends’ repeated failures to meet these goals with their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job stem from their inabilities or from an inherent deficiency in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology that (in)forms their responses? If Job has previously tried to help sufferers through difficulties by defending the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (even to the sufferer’s own hurt), then the paradigm is at fault. If Job has previously been willing to set aside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in order to be authentically and unconditionally with sufferers, then the friends are not as capable as he has been in comforting/consoling sufferers. But does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerate being set aside? What would setting aside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm imply about the paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #169

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz begins by painting a beautiful picture of the very sensitive and careful Job he remembers (4:3-4). Peterson’s translation says Job had “encouraged those who were about to quit” (the RSV’s “strengthened weak hands”), had “put stumbling people on their feet” (the RSV’s “upheld him who was stumbling”), and had put “fresh hope in people about to collapse” (the RSV’s “made firm the feeble knees”). The key words (underlined) in these phrases should be traced through the rest of the story/play, with particular attention to the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s use of these/similar words to describe himself.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #168

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 remain loyal friends 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 “instructed many”, ideas that could have prepared them for what they are now hearing from him? Has the ‘scrapheap’ Job tried to think critically/radically with them? If Job is ‘the greatest’ (as per the prologue to the story/play), I would cast his three close friends as in the top ten. 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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #167

[July 2006 journal entry]

How would Eliphaz – with his first comments (chs. 4-5) in response to Job’s first extended comments (ch. 3) -- 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 at this point sees the ‘scrapheap’ Job as not yet collapsed, as fallen. He sees him reeling, but not yet knocked out.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #166

[July 2006 journal entry]

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. If I were the author, I would have to write such a character into the story/play. 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 and ethics.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #165

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz could be cast as cautious and gentle (i.e., Peterson’s translation has “Would you mind . . .”; the RSV has “If one ventures a word with you, will you be offended?”). Perhaps he could also 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.