[July 2006 journal entry]
4:17-18 gets to the crux – i.e., the ‘scrapheap’ Job claims to have been morally consistent whereas ‘God’, he argues, has not. What does it mean, within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to say ‘God’ is righteous if suffering such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s suffering occurs without justification? Does Eliphaz accurately represent the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in suggesting that ‘God’ does not trust any being (4:18)? Is saying “God is righteous” anthropomorphic? Yes. And Eliphaz’s reference to ‘God’ having servants (attendants?) is clearly sociomorphic.
4:17-18 gets to the crux – i.e., the ‘scrapheap’ Job claims to have been morally consistent whereas ‘God’, he argues, has not. What does it mean, within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to say ‘God’ is righteous if suffering such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s suffering occurs without justification? Does Eliphaz accurately represent the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in suggesting that ‘God’ does not trust any being (4:18)? Is saying “God is righteous” anthropomorphic? Yes. And Eliphaz’s reference to ‘God’ having servants (attendants?) is clearly sociomorphic.