The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #173

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation (4:5) has Eliphaz say, “you’re hurting” (the RSV’s “you are impatient”) and “you’re reeling from the blow” (the RSV’s “you are dismayed”). Peterson’s wording focuses on the emotional and even physical impact of the calamities that have struck the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The RSV’s wording points to the impact on his thinking. Eliphaz charges the ‘scrapheap’ Job with impatience. Note that, by doing so, Eliphaz undermines future Jewish and Christian traditional views of Job as the quintessential example of patience (e.g., in Daniel, The Testament of Job, and James).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #172

[July 2006 journal entry]

What is the ‘it’ that has befallen the ‘scrapheap’ Job (4:5, RSV)? Peterson’s translation has Eliphaz say, “But now you’re the one in trouble. . . . You’ve been hit hard”. Is this ‘it’ trouble? disaster? lament? loss of confidence in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Perhaps this ‘it’ should be left ambiguous. Or should the antecedent for ‘it’ be considered self-evident? The Hebrew word is feminine. The nearest feminine noun is the reference to ‘feeble knees’. Does feebleness in old age clash with the manner of dying envisioned for the blessed by the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #171

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation (4:3a) says Job has “spoken words that clarify” to sufferers (the RSV’s “instructed”). The Hebrew word/idea is to discipline, to admonish, to correct. Is ‘to instruct’ a healthy aim for responding to sufferers’ lament? to their agony? No. Efforts to clarify/explain the breadth and depth of human suffering invariably diminish and/or draw away from a respectful focus on the sufferer/s. Eliphaz apparently intends to comfort the ‘scrapheap’ Job by correcting his thinking. Is this what Job has previously attempted with sufferers? Perhaps whether to hear Job’s first words from the ‘scrapheap’ as lament gets to the crux of the three close friends’ problem. If Job’s ‘scrapheap’ thoughts are only therapeutic or liturgical lament (e.g., the ‘lament psalms’), then the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm holds. If Job’s ‘scrapheap’ thoughts represent radically (i.e., into the root) altered insights into what is true/real, then the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm does not hold.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #170

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz sets out some challenging goals for speaking to/in the presence of a sufferer such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Do the three close friends’ repeated failures to meet these goals with their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job stem from their inabilities or from an inherent deficiency in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology that (in)forms their responses? If Job has previously tried to help sufferers through difficulties by defending the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (even to the sufferer’s own hurt), then the paradigm is at fault. If Job has previously been willing to set aside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in order to be authentically and unconditionally with sufferers, then the friends are not as capable as he has been in comforting/consoling sufferers. But does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerate being set aside? What would setting aside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm imply about the paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #169

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz begins by painting a beautiful picture of the very sensitive and careful Job he remembers (4:3-4). Peterson’s translation says Job had “encouraged those who were about to quit” (the RSV’s “strengthened weak hands”), had “put stumbling people on their feet” (the RSV’s “upheld him who was stumbling”), and had put “fresh hope in people about to collapse” (the RSV’s “made firm the feeble knees”). The key words (underlined) in these phrases should be traced through the rest of the story/play, with particular attention to the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s use of these/similar words to describe himself.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #168

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s response to Eliphaz suggests he is surprised and disappointed by Eliphaz’s reactions. Why does the ‘scrapheap’ Job think Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar can/will remain loyal friends in spite of his expressed despair? Why does he think he can say in their presence what he has not previously said, even to ‘God’? Have they missed key ideas when he had previously “instructed many”, ideas that could have prepared them for what they are now hearing from him? Has the ‘scrapheap’ Job tried to think critically/radically with them? If Job is ‘the greatest’ (as per the prologue to the story/play), I would cast his three close friends as in the top ten. Have they previously listened passively to Job and assumed he would figure out the problems, untangle the knots? Or have they put more stock in Job’s ‘on the record’ advocacy of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm rather than in his ‘off the record’ questioning?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #167

[July 2006 journal entry]

How would Eliphaz – with his first comments (chs. 4-5) in response to Job’s first extended comments (ch. 3) -- be understood by those reading/watching the story/play who have no idea what is to follow as the story/play unfolds? Note that Eliphaz at this point sees the ‘scrapheap’ Job as not yet collapsed, as fallen. He sees him reeling, but not yet knocked out.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #166

[July 2006 journal entry]

The most intriguing/challenging character to me is missing in the story/play -- i.e., a character who can be present with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him further. If I were the author, I would have to write such a character into the story/play. I would have this missing character either remain silent or respond by encouraging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to continue speaking. Such a character would represent a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality and ethics.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #165

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz could be cast as cautious and gentle (i.e., Peterson’s translation has “Would you mind . . .”; the RSV has “If one ventures a word with you, will you be offended?”). Perhaps he could also be read/heard in a way that suggests fear and uncertainty (i.e., “Were your former words -- which we too adopted and trusted -- hollow?”). He certainly picks up steam as he prods the ‘scrapheap’ Job back toward the presumed safety of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #164

[July 2006 journal entry]

Whatever the three close friends have been thinking while sitting in silence with the ‘scrapheap’ Job for seven days and nights, their ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theologies have not prepared them for Job’s first words from the ‘scrapheap’. Eliphaz is caught off guard. How should he respond to a teacher/elder who is taking positions so radically different from his previous, familiar, published views?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #163

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation has Eliphaz explain, “It’s hard to keep quiet” (RSV – “Who can keep from speaking?”). Why is Eliphaz trying to keep quiet? And why is it so hard to keep quiet? The impulse to respond when a friend speaks, especially with such unexpectedly jagged views and feelings as the ‘scrapheap’ Job has just expressed, is quite common. Perhaps Eliphaz holds explanations of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s calamities he does not think Job is ready to hear. Perhaps he is trying to be quiet in deference to the ‘scrapheap’ Job as his teacher/elder. (Would the three close friends all say -- as is proposed in the prologue -- that Job is “the greatest . . .”?) Perhaps he is searching for an appropriate response. Perhaps he fears that remaining silent implies approval. Perhaps he is hesitant to speak for ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #162

[July 2006 journal entry]

The beginning of Eliphaz’s response (4:2) is as critical a turning point as is the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s beginning to speak in the presence of his three close friends (3:2ff). In both places, a strategic interpretation decision must be made. I faced this decision in my first serious study of the story/play, occasioned by an upper-level undergraduate oral interpretation course in 1974 shortly after my first wife (d. 1987) had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Each student worked all semester on one oral reading for the course. My reading – the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s first words (chapter 3) when he broke the silence with his three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #161

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Peterson’s translation “death has invaded life” (3:26, RSV “but trouble comes”) an appropriate interpretation? Yes. The idea in antiquity was that death actively invaded life and dragged victims into the underworld. Illness and trouble were understood in antiquity to be results of death invading life.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #160

[July 2006 journal entry]

One distinguishing trait of a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality is the absence of such fear and dread. There is no ‘God’ language in this approach to spirituality that leads to the fear and dread the ‘scrapheap’ Job is experiencing. Instead, an awareness or consciousness that does not press one to sift through human experience in order to stay safely at a distance from the depth/breadth of human suffering prompts awe and sober mindedness.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #159

[July 2006 journal entry]

What is the place of fear and dread – very strong moods/assessments -- in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? By the time such is admitted, that which is feared and dreaded is already having deep effect. Think in terms of a continuum that moves from naiveté to wonder to awareness to nervousness to concern to fear and dread. The fear and dread the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerates stem from guilt – i.e., waiting for ‘the other shoe to drop’. Is such fear and dread the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s fear and dread?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #158

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz (the first of the three close friends to respond) might hear the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s reference to his fear and dread as an admission of guilt. Do the three close friends think something not yet known to them must be going on? Do they see Job’s life before the calamities to have been too good to be true? Do they wonder if ‘God’ has been setting an arrogant Job up for an eventual and complete fall?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #157

[July 2006 journal entry]

I suspect many individuals within the ‘religious’ sphere live with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s fear and dread. They cling to explanations of life experiences offered within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, all the while being haunted by the sense that the paradigm has serious flaws. They are left with a fragile, dishonest, and self-deceiving approach to spirituality and ethics. At one end of the spectrum are those deluded by accepted ‘religious’ T/O paradigm authorities. At the other end of the spectrum are those no longer deluded. Between these ends of the spectrum are those sufficiently aware of and uncomfortable with observable realities to (attempt to) delude or distract themselves.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #156

[July 2006 journal entry]

For another angle, imagine Job and his three close friends having often discussed the subject of human suffering before his tragic circumstances occurred. Human suffering for the ‘scrapheap’ Job is now no longer abstract, no longer an idea, no longer a question. The ‘scrapheap’ Job can no longer walk away from a discussion of the subject. He now embodies the subject. His admitting fear and dread (3:25-26) indicates he knows of others whose plights the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm cannot explain or protect. Is his fear and dread, then, that his life is a frightening anomaly to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? that -- being his own experience -- his plight has sufficient weight to discredit the theology upon which he has based his life?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #155

[July 2006 journal entry]

What might be the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s worst fear/s? Perhaps the loss of ease, quiet, and rest (3:26). If so, what would this say about Job? about the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? about ‘God’? Another possibility might be his realizing, “I do not have life (and, therefore, ‘God’) figured out”, accentuated by his now being among those cast aside on the ‘scrapheap’ as cursed. The accumulating quantity of data calling into question the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is large in number/force and growing. His becoming a victim has built the anomalous data pile to the point of overwhelming the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #154

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job ends his first comments to/before his three close friends with references to “the worst of my fears” and “what I’ve dreaded most” (3:25-26). These comments stand in sharp contrast to the prologue’s presentation of Job. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s critique of conventional ‘wisdom’ has created his dread/fear (i.e., due to now having observed ‘life under the sun’ more radically/indiscriminately than has his three close friends). The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm considers dread/fear to be evidence of faithlessness.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #153

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation “ . . . vomit my anguish” is more vivid than the RSV’s “my groanings are poured out like water” (3:24). Peterson captures well the meaning/image. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s words are like water flowing wildly down a wadi.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #152

[July 2006 journal entry]

Note the dramatic shift from the prologue’s description of Job as ‘hedged about’ (e.g., 1:10) to the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s feeling “hedged in” (3.21) – i.e., a shift from the image of being protected to the image of being trapped/cornered. How does the ‘scrapheap’ Job see ‘God’ blocking all the roads to meaning? How do theologies within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm avoid this charge that ‘God’ blocks a person’s life from having meaning?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #151

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works off the premise that life’s divinely intended/designed sense or meaning is sufficiently clear to establish confidence that the paradigm is reliable. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s experience leads him to the opposite view. He sits on the ‘scrapheap’ frustrated and tortured, with the decision whether or not to reject the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm drawing nearer and nearer.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #150

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job laments -- “What’s the point of life when it doesn’t make sense, when God blocks all the roads to meaning?” (3:23). Peterson’s paraphrase is a bit loose. He does, however, capture the sense quite well. The RSV has “a man whose way is hid”. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s idea/question is -- “Why does a person continue to live when the way is hidden or the person is fenced in? Why would God do such a cruel thing?” This question is dependent on/rooted in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The ‘scrapheap’ Job still thinks at this point that there is sense or meaning to his life, but it is hidden from him. Would disclosure of the prologue’s scenes in the courts of ‘God’ satisfy the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s search for sense or meaning to his plight? I think not. Not far ahead for him is the thought that in fact there is no longer any divinely intended/designed sense or meaning to his life. He then will face a radical (i.e., to the root) decision/threshold – whether or not to conclude that no one’s life has the purpose or the meaning proposed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #149

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job presses -- “Why does God bother giving light to the miserable, . . .” (3:20-22). His statements make vivid how “his suffering was very great” (2:13) – especially his references to those “who want in the worst way to die” (RSV “who long for death”) and “who can’t imagine anything better than death” (RSV “who dig for it more than for hidden treasures”). Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute the survival and continuing existence of every miserable individual directly and intentionally to ‘God’? I think this deduction cannot be avoided. There is obvious relevancy here for the assisted dying issues in the practice of medicine.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #148

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job agonizes, “Why didn’t I die at birth . . .” (3:11ff). It is important to track closely the perceptions of death and dying throughout the story/play. Does Job change his perceptions of death? of the dying process? of the dying experience? Yes. His perceptions change in significant ways as his experience suddenly shifts toward and remains disturbingly similar to the stories the caravan travelers are telling around campfires about the more desperate aspects of the human condition. The ‘scrapheap’ Job experiences firsthand how tragic and ugly suffering/dying can be. Eliphaz (5:26) – true to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- reminds an exasperated ‘scrapheap’ Job the faithful are promised a romanticized, idyllic death.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #147

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re his date of birth, the ‘scrapheap’ Job longs -- “ . . . turn that night into pure nothingness” (3:7). The RSV has “let that night be barren”. Is there a link – philosophical or symbolic – between ‘barren’ and ‘nothingness’? Did Jewish thought in antiquity include the metaphysical concept of ‘nothingness’ (as in existential philosophy)? Koheleth (the Ecclesiastes essay) and the ‘scrapheap’ Job sound ‘existential’ in many ways. Sheol was understood in antiquity to be a fading into nothingness, an eventual nothingness. However, ‘God’ was not thought to have created out of nothingness (ex nihilo creation being a later/Christian extrapolation). Not being inclined toward metaphysical reflection, Jewish thinkers in antiquity apparently did not feel disturbed by the implied dualism of ‘God’ and ‘matter’ (as suggested in the potter and clay metaphor).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #146

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is ‘the day’ to which the ‘scrapheap’ Job refers the day of his conception? Peterson’s translation has “the night of my conception” (3:6). Or is it the day of his delivery (e.g., 3:7, 11)? The Hebrew wording suggests both. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm lead to attributing stillbirths to the intentions and plans of ‘God’ (as 3:16 suggests)? Yes.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #145

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job refers to “those who are good at cursing” (3:8). Who is he asking to curse the day of his birth? What skill do they have? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s lament shifts from third-person to first-person (vs. 11). Is he addressing ‘God’ in part or all of his lament? Is he addressing anyone at all? Or is he saying he would “curse the day of his birth” if he could?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #144

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job “cursed the day of his birth” (3:1). What concretely would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be expecting if indeed his day of birth is cursed? Perhaps he is wishing the day would somehow be skipped over in the calendar. Or perhaps he is wishing that everyone born on that day would be stillborn or die soon after birth. But he is not the only one born on that day. In cursing his day of birth, he curses their day of birth too. The consequences of such a cursing would have befallen them as well as him. This self-centeredness is noticeably parallel to the lack of regard or respect ‘God’ has for those damaged or destroyed around Job in the prologue’s two cycles of calamities. Servants die and no doubt some of the marauding enemies die too. I would cast the prologue Job as near enough to offer aid to some of these sufferers, but still safely distant -- existentially and theologically -- from the harsh realities of suffering until such came to him.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #143

[July 2006 journal entry]

Later in the story/play, the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks of ‘God’ as having no manners (e.g., ‘God’ “snatches”). The prologue makes it no surprise that the ‘scrapheap’ Job would draw this conclusion. I do not think the behavior of ‘God’ (all concepts of ‘God’ in the story/play) can be excused with -- “His ways are not our ways”.