[July 2006 journal entry]
Is the absence of specific references to the Accuser in the whirlwind section intentional? significant? By not reintroducing the Accuser, the author seems to put the onus squarely on ‘God’ both for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight as well for the collateral killing/destruction that resulted from the prologue tragedies that befell Job. (Note that the Accuser is also not mentioned in the epilogue.) Not reintroducing the Accuser accentuates the flawed core premise of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – i.e., that ‘God’ is the origin/source for all that happens, including the breadth and depth of human suffering.
Is the absence of specific references to the Accuser in the whirlwind section intentional? significant? By not reintroducing the Accuser, the author seems to put the onus squarely on ‘God’ both for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight as well for the collateral killing/destruction that resulted from the prologue tragedies that befell Job. (Note that the Accuser is also not mentioned in the epilogue.) Not reintroducing the Accuser accentuates the flawed core premise of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – i.e., that ‘God’ is the origin/source for all that happens, including the breadth and depth of human suffering.
