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 a metaphor introduced by Eliphaz)? I have not yet found such indications.
Eliphaz seems to endorse (4:6) the descriptions of Job 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’?
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.”
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.
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?
Eliphaz is arguing for an “If righteous, then blessed” equation/theology in the presence of an utterly devastated friend whom he and the public have considered a unique model of righteousness. Would any variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm restrain Eliphaz?
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/consider the cruel/torturous 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. My guidance for our daughters as they have left home – i.e., always test ideas by their implications re the K-Bar-B kids.
A ‘-3 to +3’ spectrum on ‘friendship’ is needed, with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s definition of friendship (6:14) being ‘+3’ on the spectrum.
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’).
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, ethics, theology occurred with my realization that within the ‘religious’ sphere I could without reprisal seriously/radically think – even raise core questions – 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’.
For a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics, spirituality, and theology -- observation must be careful, intense, unrestrained, unrestricted. Instead, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is looking for support/confirmation.
Eliphaz seems to endorse (4:6) the descriptions of Job 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’?
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.”
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.
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?
Eliphaz is arguing for an “If righteous, then blessed” equation/theology in the presence of an utterly devastated friend whom he and the public have considered a unique model of righteousness. Would any variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm restrain Eliphaz?
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/consider the cruel/torturous 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. My guidance for our daughters as they have left home – i.e., always test ideas by their implications re the K-Bar-B kids.
A ‘-3 to +3’ spectrum on ‘friendship’ is needed, with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s definition of friendship (6:14) being ‘+3’ on the spectrum.
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’).
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, ethics, theology occurred with my realization that within the ‘religious’ sphere I could without reprisal seriously/radically think – even raise core questions – 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’.
For a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics, spirituality, and theology -- observation must be careful, intense, unrestrained, unrestricted. Instead, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is looking for support/confirmation.
