Of his children, Job wonders anxiously, “Maybe one of them sinned by defying God inwardly” (1:5). Is Peterson’s ‘defy’ an appropriate rendering (‘curse’ in the RSV)? The Hebrew word translated ‘defy’/‘curse’ is an intensive form of the word for ‘bless’. Perhaps this choice is an example of a hesitation even to speak/write in any other way than to bless ‘God’. In other words, “Who would dare blaspheme ‘God’?” In a way, ‘curse’ is a stronger translation than ‘defy’ in that ‘curse’ more definitively connotes rejection. But in another way, ‘defy’ is a stronger translation than ‘curse’ in that ‘defy’ suggests the courage to stand up to and challenge ‘God’. The Hebrew word could also carry the idea of ‘to disown’.
Catching the word play that differentiates ‘defy’/‘curse’ from ‘bless’ requires an eye for irony. The idea of ‘defy’/‘curse’ then is to mutter “yeah, right” under one’s breath after saying “blessed”. Perhaps the play on the word for ‘bless’ (one of many subtle word plays that are developed through the heated exchanges between the ‘scrap heap Job’ and his three close friends that separate the prologue from the epilogue) is an illustration of the use of contrast to get the attention of the careful reader/audience.
Could/should the remarks of the ‘scrap heap Job’ in the heated exchanges with his three close friends be construed as a disclosure that he in fact does ‘defy God inwardly’? I think so if a unity between the prologue and the epilogue, over against the heated exchanges in the middle section of the story/play, is maintained.
To explore the various and surprising nuances for key terms such as ‘defy’ in the prologue, the Accuser (and, I would propose, the narrator) presents a clever, ironic, even sarcastic perspective. Does Job ever represent/express a similar perspective?
Job’s three close friends bless ‘God’ by maintaining the ‘religious’ theologically orthodox (T/O) paradigm, by following protocol, by ‘sucking up’. The ‘scrap heap Job’ seems to defy ‘God’ in the sense of ‘blessing God out’. Does he disown or reject ‘God’ (and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm)? I think the story/play leaves the ‘scrap heap Job’ and the issue of his integrity at this very fork in his spiritual road. To maintain his integrity, I think he only has one option – i.e., to reject ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to which he had long been loyal. Certainly from within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (to which his three close friends remain unwaveringly loyal), the ‘scrap heap Job’ must be seen as having moved across the theological spectrum to the threatening position of disowning or rejecting ‘God’. Once relief comes from his tragedies at the story/play’s end, how will the ‘scrap heap Job’ maintain his integrity? Can he return to his place as a teacher within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community without violating his integrity? How will he parent? How will he speak at the city gate? Will he sacrifice his aristocratic privileges in order to sustain a ‘scrap heap’ perspective? Will he add his ‘scrap heap’ voice to the caravan travelers’ stories?
What would ‘defying God inwardly’ have entailed if Job’s children (in the prologue) had done so as they were partying? And is ‘merry-making’ being criticized in the story/play?
In light of the surprise affirmation of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts (42:7-9) near the end, is the narrator encouraging the reader/audience to defy ‘God’? One trait of a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics and spirituality (some variation of which would be an alternative for the ‘scrap heap Job’ should he choose to take the next steps away from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) is that individuals are encouraged to address ‘God’ bravely, in strength.
I find it thought provoking to associate the ‘scrap heap Job’ with the story of the prophet Nathan before King David, with Shostakovich before Stalin, with a concentration camp survivor. What would these associations imply re ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?