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?
Parallels may be seen 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 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 to add Koholeth. And then there is the task of writing into the story/play a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of ‘Jesus’ as a character.
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 more than an individualistic meaning for providence?
Is there a concept of freedom in Job? in Ecclesiastes? The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm interpretations of freedom have developed in light of assumptions re divine sovereignty (e.g., Luther’s ‘two kingdom’ model or the medieval view of freedom as recovering what one was intended by the design of creation to be). Is the idea of 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 freedom is a distinctive characteristic of a ‘non-religious’ approach to theology, spirituality, 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 is condemned (a charge the three close friends attempt to force on the ‘scrapheap’ Job).
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 ‘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/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 spiritual/theological collapse for sufferers represented by the ‘scrapheap’ Job.
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 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.) 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 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.
The Apostle Paul seems deeply ‘religious’ in the T/O paradigm sense in that (1) he builds off the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’, human experience, and history, (2) his methodology is not in any way empirical/historical (in other words, he does not consider seriously the caravan news as does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or what happens ‘under the sun’ as does Koheleth), (3) he does not recognize/affirm innocent suffering as an in fact reality, (4) he argues for proportionality re the righteous being blessed and the unrighteous being cursed, (5) he separates wisdom from careful/indiscriminate consideration of human experience, (6) he expects the end of time to come soon, (7) he juxtaposes faith and doubt, (8) he . . . .
Parallels may be seen 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 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 to add Koholeth. And then there is the task of writing into the story/play a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of ‘Jesus’ as a character.
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 more than an individualistic meaning for providence?
Is there a concept of freedom in Job? in Ecclesiastes? The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm interpretations of freedom have developed in light of assumptions re divine sovereignty (e.g., Luther’s ‘two kingdom’ model or the medieval view of freedom as recovering what one was intended by the design of creation to be). Is the idea of 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 freedom is a distinctive characteristic of a ‘non-religious’ approach to theology, spirituality, 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 is condemned (a charge the three close friends attempt to force on the ‘scrapheap’ Job).
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 ‘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/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 spiritual/theological collapse for sufferers represented by the ‘scrapheap’ Job.
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 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.) 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 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.
The Apostle Paul seems deeply ‘religious’ in the T/O paradigm sense in that (1) he builds off the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’, human experience, and history, (2) his methodology is not in any way empirical/historical (in other words, he does not consider seriously the caravan news as does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or what happens ‘under the sun’ as does Koheleth), (3) he does not recognize/affirm innocent suffering as an in fact reality, (4) he argues for proportionality re the righteous being blessed and the unrighteous being cursed, (5) he separates wisdom from careful/indiscriminate consideration of human experience, (6) he expects the end of time to come soon, (7) he juxtaposes faith and doubt, (8) he . . . .
