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.