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.