The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #340

[October 2000 journal entry]
My ‘non-religious’ way in/out of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture is via Ecclesiastes and Job. Koheleth’s ‘under the sun’ methodology/perspective resonates with a ‘from below’ scientific methodology. Job’s statements from the ‘scrapheap’ resonate with the Einstein et al attention to the significance of the observer’s perspective for interpreting phenomena (i.e., relativity). The ‘from below’ perspective I see advocated by Koheleth and the ‘scrapheap’ Job also entails unconditional alignment with innocent sufferer/s. I propose that a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics builds upon a ‘from below’ alignment/perspective re seeing and explaining events/experiences.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #339

[October 2000 journal entry]
I have concluded that unrestricted and ‘radical’ (i.e., ‘to the root’) incorporation of the results of inquiry/scholarship pertinent to methodology is not and cannot be done while maintaining a place within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. One can do so only in a partial, guarded, and restricted (at times, secretive or ‘off the record’) way within the ‘religious’ paradigm. ‘Religious’ discourse reverts (sometimes quickly, always eventually) to un(der)examined and pre-modern methodology, assumptions, and language (as is characteristic of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as well as hymns, prayers, etc.).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #338

[October 2000 journal entry]
I am again giving considerable thought examining the story/play Job from a ‘J-E-P-D’ critical approach (esp., to the ‘God’ language of the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends). I have attempted to critique all theological reflection in the story/play by the results of modern critical scholarship consistently and persistently over the past twenty-five years (i.e., from my graduate school studies forward to today). This hermeneutic task is a critical/pivotal distinction that separates a ‘religious’ from a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics for me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #337

[July 2006 journal entry]
The story/play Job begins with a series of tragic reports of death and devastation. Then after months of futility (7:3), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical deterioration leaves him dirty, foul breathed, a mere shadow of his former frame. Food has no taste. The nights drag on. He can read abandonment, fear, ridicule in the eyes of friends, relatives, colleagues. There are several ways to enter the story/play – e.g.,

1. The question “Does Job fear God for nothing?” leads to an interpretation of tragic experiences as a test of integrity (defined as the coherence of one’s actions over a lifetime). In the prologue, Job is not charged with vices. Instead, he is suspected of being double-minded in his virtues. Why does the Accuser think he can win the prologue wager?
   
   
2. The marriage vow “For better or worse” leads to an attempt to see the story/play from the perspective of Job’s wife. Particular attention – unfortunately absent in the story/play -- should be given to the multiple complications faced daily by the spouses/partners of profound sufferers.
   
   
3. Realizing that good intentions can fail leads to a description/interpretation of the inability of Job’s spiritual community -- including his closest friends -- to remain loyal to him.
   
   
4. The claim “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” opens an examination of the chasm that separates pre-scientific and scientific (or modern) understandings of life experiences, with particular attention given to the expanding technological ways we now give and take away life in the practice of medicine.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #336

[July 2006 journal entry]
Does chance have a place in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? No. Is the “time and chance govern (happen to) all” proverb repeated/reflected elsewhere in Jewish or Christian scripture? No. From the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, Koheleth is simply wrong. At best the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm allows that ‘God’ decides the ultimate fate of an individual, but that the method/experience of that fate can be executed in a variety of ways. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s adherents attribute events not explained by the paradigm to a ‘his ways are not our ways’ mystery rather than to chance.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #335

[July 2006 journal entry]
Re “time and chance govern (happen to) all” (Eccl. 9:11) -- I understand the reference to time to mean timing. ‘Govern’ and ‘happen to’ translate a Hebrew verb that means to encounter, to meet, to befall. Does this word point to an earlier stage in the development of Hebrew thought when chance was considered to be present/manifest in human experience? when ‘God’ had not been figured out as per the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? when the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm did not yet exist? Or does this word point to a later challenge to the established ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #334

[July 2006 journal entry]
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s self-defense and strained grip on his integrity represent the beginnings of an approach to spirituality based on his strengths. The various approaches to spirituality found within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm are based on a low/weak self-understanding, with the result that either ‘God’ is relevant only to/through one’s weakness or weakness becomes the essential/full truth about one’s self. Affirmation of and appeal to human strength/s are viewed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as pride heading toward spiritual ruin.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #333

[July 2006 journal entry]
What influence do/should choices about professional and personal paths have on experiencing pressure -- at the paradigm level -- from exposure to and/or experience with the harsh realities of innocent suffering?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #331

[July 2006 journal entry]
Re ‘Jesus’ -- a method is needed that

1. distinguishes ‘Jesus’ from the prima facie impressions left by the four Gospels (e.g., Maccoby’s The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity),
2. delineates the place of ‘religion’ for ‘Jesus’ (e.g., birth place/family, synagogue upbringing, religious ceremonies, custom of attending synagogue services, interest in the use of the Temple, familiarity with scripture texts, . . .),
3. delineates ‘non-religious’ dimensions in ‘Jesus’ (e.g., immediacy of the presence of ‘God’, open-air vs. institutional settings in which to meet/teach, the Sermon on the Mount themes, his death, . . .).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #330

[July 2006 journal entry]

The writings attributed to Paul in Christian scripture seem deeply ‘religious’ in that (1) they build off the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’, human experience, and history, (2) the methodology is not in any way empirical/historical (in other words, they do not consider seriously the caravan news as does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or what happens ‘under the sun’ as does Koheleth), (3) they do not recognize/affirm innocent suffering as an in-fact reality, (4) they argue for proportionality re the righteous being blessed and the unrighteous being cursed, (5) they separate wisdom from careful and indiscriminate consideration of human experience, (6) they expect the end of time to come soon, (7) they juxtapose faith and doubt, (8) they . . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #329

[July 2006 journal entry]

Corollary observations: (1) Many individuals who experience significant loss or suffering remain safely within and loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm without nearing the troubled state of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. (2) Many others who experience significant loss or suffering do so safely outside of and not invested in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm without nearing the troubled state of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The beginnings of a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality can be found among these individuals -- e.g., humility, gratefulness, empathy, true friendship, . . . (3) It is not clear to me that the ‘scrapheap’ Job crosses the threshold beyond which his pain/suffering can/will open his eyes to and become symbolic of the breadth/depth of innocent suffering. (4) The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is based on a ‘proportionality’ expectation (somewhat analogous to the entitlement mentality/culture that has developed in the United States since the 1960s).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #328

[July 2006 journal entry]
I see the ‘scrapheap’ Job as troubled (beyond the sheer pain of his condition) because his expectations were so deeply rooted in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is critiqued in the story/play. The ‘scrapheap’ Job cannot say, “I’ve been dealt a bad hand” and refer to the luck, the randomness, the misfortune of a ‘chance factor’ at work in human experience. Instead, he expects to be dealt a good hand and cannot (with integrity) avoid challenging/questioning the dealer (i.e., ‘God’). (Note a limit to the use of the dealer analogy in that there is a personal factor -- the dealer -- and there is a random factor -- the shuffle of the cards -- in the reference.)

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #327

[July 2006 journal entry]
The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is dependent on and inseparable from using language about ‘God’ in a literally equivalent manner (rather than in an analogical manner that acknowledges the significance of anthropomorphic, sociomorphic, and cosmomorphic limitations and restrictions). Assigning meaning to the term ‘God’ in this way -- so evident in the literally equivalent rather than analogical use of language about ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- makes the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm vulnerable to the spiritual, ethical, and theological collapse for sufferers represented by the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #326

[July 2006 journal entry]
Is there a variation on the ‘religious’ paradigm in which innocent suffering is recognized as in fact (rather than only in appearance) offensive, tragic, grievously wrong? in which innocent suffering is taken seriously? I do not know of such.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #325

[July 2006 journal entry]
Is there a concept of human freedom in Job? in Ecclesiastes? The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm interpretations of human freedom have developed in light of assumptions re divine sovereignty (e.g., Luther’s ‘two kingdom’ model or the medieval view of human freedom as recovering what one was intended by the design of creation to be). Is the idea of human freedom as autonomy in Job? in Ecclesiastes? in other Jewish or Christian scripture texts? in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Jewish theology? in Christian theology? Autonomy as the essence of human freedom is a distinctive characteristic of a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics (e.g., a more adult nuance rather than an infant nuance re being a ‘child of God’, responsibility for one’s self and others, liberty to make choices, . . .). From within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, any suggestion or affirmation of autonomy is considered pride and condemned (a charge the three close friends attempt to force on the ‘scrapheap’ Job).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #324

[July 2006 journal entry]
Representations of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in American Christianity that move across the theological spectrum from liberal to evangelical/fundamentalist become increasingly individualistic in the interpretation of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s promises of providential protection/security. Is the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in its Jewish origins and through the life of ‘Jesus’ rooted in a corporate rather than an individualistic meaning for providence?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #323

[July 2006 journal entry]
Parallels may be drawn between the stories of Ruth and Job (esp., the endings), with Boaz as something of a model ‘wise man’. Would Boaz add anything new to the story/play Job if he were written into the story/play as a fourth close friend? Perhaps he could be presented as doing something for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comfort/recovery the other three close friends do not achieve, highlighting the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s dilemma – i.e., to comfort the ‘scrapheap’ Job is to fight against ‘God’. Would Boaz, therefore, have difficulty or be awkward with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s theological demands? Is there indication of such awkwardness for Boaz in the story of Ruth? Another option for writing in a fourth close friend would be add Koholeth. And then there is the task of writing into the story/play a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of ‘Jesus’ as a character.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #322

[July 2006 journal entry]
The exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends are in poetic form. The prophetic form and the lament form in antiquity had poetic characteristics. MacLeish’s JB is a script for theatre. Did Israel have theatre? Or was theatre not introduced until the rise of the Greeks?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #321

[July 2006 journal entry]

If the narrator is responsible for the official text having the last paragraph (either by writing it or allowing it), then the narrator makes room for the retention of the simplistic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/theology as well as for consideration of the radical intention/result of the ‘scrapheap’ perspective on spirituality and ethics (affirmed in 42:7-9) inherent in the extended section with the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #320

[July 2006 journal entry]

The short version of the story/play -- i.e., prologue plus the epilogue in the last paragraph of the text (42:10-17) -- stands on its own as a separate composition. The section with the intense exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends (chs. 3-32) also stands on its own as a separate composition that openly and antithetically challenges the short version of the story/play. The whirlwind section -- perhaps including the Elihu speeches, but definitely including the 42:7-9 paragraph -- stands on its own as a separate composition. If the whirlwind ‘God’ is the narrator’s proposal re ‘God’, it seems to me:

• the narrator recognizes the simplistic form of the story/play preferred within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is severely damaged/discredited by the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends;
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ remains within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (being anchored by appeal to the sheer sovereignty of ‘God’), but now minus the (D)euteronomic reduction of human experience to a ‘righteous are blessed and unrighteous are cursed’ equation;
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind alternative to the simplistic theology common to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is somewhat analogous to the shift from the Homeric stories of the gods to Greek philosophy (from Socrates through Zeno);
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ undercuts the radical (i.e., to the root) ‘scrapheap’ insights of Job.