The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #306

[July 2006 journal entry]

Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, the epilogue is heard to say, “There. I knew God would make everything work out in the end.” Instead, I hear the epilogue to say, “It all works out in the end. It’s like nothing bad ever happened to Job! Yeah, right.” I think a sarcastic interpretation should be carried over to the epilogue from the end of the whirlwind encounter.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #305

[July 2006 journal entry]
It seems to me the core premise of the whirlwind section is that the power/transcendence assigned to ‘God’ removes ‘God’ from accountability, leaving as ‘take it or leave it’ the claim there is some comprehensive plan/purpose that encompasses the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight. I do not accept this understanding of ‘God’ for at least three reasons. First, in every aspect of my life, I reject a hierarchical, ‘Who is the strongest?’, rank-pulling approach to relationships. Second, the core premise stands or falls with a pre-scientific cosmology. Third, I do not reduce life circumstances to a single factor -- i.e., divine sovereignty.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #304

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is there an implicit judgment against the ‘scrapheap’ Job in the reference to “the proud” (40:11-13)? I have read repeatedly the Behemoth and Leviathan sections without experiencing an “Aha, so that’s the point” other than to conclude that the message from ‘God’ is ‘might makes right’. Peterson has ‘God’ contend, “If you can’t hold your own against his glowering visage, how, then, do you expect to stand up to me? Who could confront me and get by with it? I’m in charge of all this -- I run this universe!”

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #303

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson makes the taunting by ‘God’ clear -- “Do you presume to tell me what I’m doing wrong? Are you calling me a sinner so you can be a saint?” (40:8). With the first question, ‘God’ is saying, “Who are you?” implying ‘God’ is not accountable to the likes of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. This snubbing of the ‘scrapheap’ Job is reinforced in 40:10-14. ‘God’ persists -- “Go ahead, show your stuff. Let’s see what you’re made of, what you can do” (40:10). With the second question, ‘God’ shifts to an attack on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s motive. This second question could as easily be deflected back to ‘God’ by the ‘scrapheap’ Job – “Must I destroy my integrity by admitting guilt so that you can be justified?”

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #302

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say -- “I should never have opened my mouth” (40:3-5). Here is an echo of the prologue references to Job’s not charging ‘God’ with wrongdoing, to his not blaming ‘God’, to his not sinning “with his lips”. Does Job’s response mean he no longer thinks what he dared to say from the ‘scrapheap’? Or does it mean the ‘scrapheap’ Job realizes the audience with ‘God’ for which he has hoped is useless?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #301

[July 2006 journal entry]

At best, ‘God’ looks over at the ‘scrapheap’ Job in the epilogue (42:10ff) after the crowded city gates have emptied and tosses him some coins. ‘God’ reminds me of ‘the Godfather’. The logic in the situation seems lost. ‘God’ challenges the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s credentials. ‘God’ disregards the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s credibility as a survivor. And then the surprise (42:7-9) -- ‘God’ endorses what Job has said from the ‘scrapheap’! With this unanticipated endorsement, the author calls for a verdict from each reader/hearer re the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm so thoroughly discredited by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #300

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson’s translation has ‘God’ chide the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- “Now what do you have to say for yourself? Are you going to haul me, the Mighty One, into court and press charges?” (40:1-2). The RSV translation is hard to read here. “A faultfinder” seems vague. “Contend” carries the image of a formal charge in court. The idea is more that of a frail beggar daring to challenge the integrity of the senior teacher of wisdom at the city gates. And how should “let him answer it” be heard (40:2)? Is the ‘scrapheap’ Job being forced/embarrassed to shut up until he can match ‘God’ item for item in a knowledge test? Or is the ‘scrapheap’ Job being forced/embarrassed to shut up by a ‘God’ ready to pull rank on him?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #299

[July 2006 journal entry]
I have two primary reactions to 38:12-39:30. First, the entire section is thoroughly and essentially pre-scientific in imaging the relation of ‘God’ to the natural order. If Job were recast as a modern/scientific individual, he would be in a position to claim knowledge – even deep knowledge – about many of the questions posed by ‘God’. Though the RSV translation has no parallel for Peterson’s “You don’t for a minute imagine these marvels of weather just happen, do you?” (38:30), Peterson with this question seems to capture the thrust of all the illustrations in 38:12-39:30. Second, as far as I can tell, nothing is said

1. about human beings as a classification of creatures,
2. about the purpose of the natural order,
3. about the baby/adolescent disorder found in the natural order,
4. about mercy, peace, justice, or
5. about the breadth/depth of human suffering.

What do the questions ‘God’ puts to the ‘scrapheap’ Job have to do with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s desperate situation? his pained questions? The tone attributed to ‘God’ in this whirlwind section does not suggest such questions would be entertained if pressed by the ‘scrapheap’ Job. And yet these questions are significant, at least for a ‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’ spirituality and ethics.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #298

[July 2006 journal entry]
The whirlwind section of the story/play seems to encourage a developmental view of the natural order. Is such a view found elsewhere in ancient Jewish thought? The newborn analogy is suggestive in at least three additional ways – i.e., (1) the natural order is personified so as to have an independent will, (2) the natural order is pictured to be maturing past infant/immature behavior, and (3) earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes, et al are interpreted as tantrums.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #297

[July 2006 journal entry]
The comments on the natural order (38:4-11) are very interesting. Peterson brings out the newborn analogy with “the ocean gushed forth like a baby from the womb” (38:8), “I made a playpen for it, a strong playpen so it couldn’t run loose” (38:10), and “Your wild tantrums (RSV, “proud waves”) are confined to this place”. How do these descriptions compare/contrast with the Genesis stories about the natural order? with the observations about the natural order in Ecclesiastes? Is the narrator mixing literal language (e.g., Peterson’s references to “its size”, “the blueprints and measurements”, “foundation”, and “cornerstone”) and metaphorical language (e.g., Peterson’s references to “morning stars sang”, “angels shouted”, “I wrapped the ocean in soft clouds and tucked it in safely at night”) re the natural order? Would the initial audiences have made such a distinction? or taken all these references literally?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #296

[July 2006 journal entry]
Re the translation “Pull yourself together Job! Up on your feet! Stand tall!” (38:3 in Peterson) – can the ‘scrapheap’ Job in his deteriorated physical and emotional state do so? The demand and the tone strike me as very insensitive and could be heard to mean ‘God’ does not consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be as bad off as he looks, sounds, thinks.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #295

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson has ‘God’ ask, “Why do you confuse the issue?” (38:2) where the RSV has ‘God’ ask, “Who is this that darkens counsel?” Who is ‘God’ calling confused? For whom does ‘God’ think counsel has been darkened? Is it possible ‘God’ does not recognize the ‘scrap heap’ Job? And what is the issue? The question sounds similar to a judge reacting to an attorney’s attempt to introduce more ideas and/or new information just when a court case is about to be decided.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #294

[July 2006 journal entry]
Is the absence of specific references to the Accuser in the whirlwind section intentional? significant? By not reintroducing the Accuser, the author seems to put the onus squarely on ‘God’ both for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight as well for the collateral killing/destruction that resulted from the prologue tragedies that befell Job. (Note that the Accuser is also not mentioned in the epilogue.) Not reintroducing the Accuser accentuates the flawed core premise of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – i.e., that ‘God’ is the origin/source for all that happens, including the breadth and depth of human suffering.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #293

[July 2006 journal entry]
Interpreting the story/play in a sarcastic manner continues to be plausible through the whirlwind section. In staging this scene, is only the ‘scrapheap’ Job being addressed? or his three close friends also? and Elihu? Are the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s wife, family, and wider circle of acquaintances near?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #292

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson has “And now, finally, God answered Job from the eye of a violent storm” (ch. 38). The RSV, following the Hebrew text more closely, does not have the word ‘finally’. The word ‘finally’ underscores the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s impatience and frustration. The RSV has ‘Lord’ instead of ‘God’. The terms ‘God’ and ‘the Almighty’ are more common in Job than is ‘Lord’. Are these terms used differently in the prologue/epilogue than in the extended middle sections of the story/play? The word Peterson translates “violent storm” (RSV “whirlwind”) is not the word used in the prologue. In light of the destructive wind described in the prologue, the ‘scrapheap’ Job likely associates this violent wind with a view of ‘God’ as brutally destructive.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #291

[July 2006 journal entry]
When compared with the RSV, Peterson (6:24-27) seems to be translating rather freely (especially the underlined phrases)?

[Peterson]

Confront me with the truth and I’ll shut up. Show me where I’ve gone off the track. Honest words never hurt anyone, but what’s the point of all this pious bluster? You pretend to tell me what’s wrong with my life, but treat my words of anguish as so much hot air. Are people mere things to you? Are friends just items of profit?

[RSV]

Teach me, and I will be silent; make me understand how I have gone wrong. How forceful are honest words. But your reproof, what does it reprove? Do you think that you can reprove words, as if the speech of the desperate were wind? You would even cast lots over the orphan, and bargain over your friend.

‘Gone off track’ is much more vivid than ‘gone wrong’. Would there have been a track in antiquity as rigid/fixed as a train track is today? The track analogy suggests both a path and a destination. What is the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s expected destination?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #290

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (6:23a) has “Nor did I beg you to go out on a limb for me” (RSV “save me from an opponent’s hand”). Peterson does not appear to retain 6:23b in the Hebrew text (RSV “ransom me from the hand of oppressors”). What would the three close friends’ going out on a limb have entailed, had the ‘scrapheap’ Job so urged them to do so? Does he expect his three close friends to join him in challenging the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm or in condemning traditional understandings of ‘God’? The ‘scrapheap’ Job may not be begging them to do so. But he does appear to be stating an expectation.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #289

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson (6:21b) has “a hard scene” (RSV “calamity”). I think Peterson is too casual with ‘hard scene’. The Hebrew word is better translated as terror or fear. What makes a condition hard? terrifying? fearful?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #288

[July 2006 journal entry]
Do the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends turn out to be no more than ‘so called friends’ (Peterson)? If so, they are parallel to the ‘pretend to be friends’ in Proverbs.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #287

[July 2006 journal entry]
The ‘scrapheap’ Job points to caravan travelers (6:18; see also 6:19, 8:13, 30:12). (Peterson also has “merchants” and “tourists”.) Peterson’s use of ‘tourists’ is a stretch for antiquity. Few people took long vacations. ‘Traveling merchants’ would be better wording. I find insight in associating the caravan travelers in antiquity with the modern taxi driver. The caravan travelers in antiquity see more widely than those who have not traveled. They have time to ponder what they have seen. Here the focus is on the risk that a caravan gets turned around and lost (like wagon trains in the American West). A wrong turn could move a caravan farther from water or into greater danger. Looking at the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends with this metaphor, they are like a caravan that loses its way and is never heard from again. The ‘scrapheap’ Job spots his three close friends. He goes out of his way for a drink from them. He is confident. But he is soon disappointed. His countenance falls.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #286

[July 2006 journal entry]
There are two ways within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to assess one’s spiritual status –

1. to reason inductively from observable behavior to conclusions re being among the righteous or the unrighteous or
2. to reason deductively from life circumstances re being blessed or being cursed to conclusions re being among the righteous or the unrighteous.

Painful experiences may initially be classified as misfortune and set aside as analogous to statistical anomalies that do not melt or hollow out or ruin the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. If the wicked (as determined by observable behavior) are not cursed, at what point does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm begin to break down?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #285

[July 2006 journal entry]
Why do the three close friends not advocate for the ‘scrapheap’ Job (e.g., as Abraham pleads for Lot), given their long friendship with him? Why does the ‘scrapheap’ Job expect such? Are there any indications the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is melting down for his three close friends?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #284

[July 2006 journal entry]
At some points (e.g., 5:17), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends see him as being reproved and, therefore, still among the blessed. At other points, they see him as being cursed. The ‘scrapheap’ Job clearly sees himself as unjustifiably cursed. The three close friends see him after he has been devastated/humiliated by all the prologue tragedies and they still try to apply the reproof model. What more could happen that would move them to consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job cursed? In spite of the cursed evidence, they seem to be grasping for some way to continue considering him to be among the blessed, hoping to avoid the consequences of considering him instead to be among the cursed. I suspect this line of reasoning frames their conversations about how to be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job. What are the signals the three close friends have shifted from seeing him as reproved to seeing him cursed?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #283

[July 2006 journal entry]
Evidence as well as the meaning of being ‘blessed’ steadily shift as this spectrum is crossed. In other words, there is a sub-spectrum (or a shading) re ‘blessed’ before the threshold into ‘reproof’ is crossed and there is a sub-spectrum (or a shading) re ‘reproof’. Being ‘cursed’ is both the last chance for the one cursed (i.e., discipline by shunning) and protection for the community gathered around the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. ‘Repenting’ when being reproved has to do with a course correction or adjustment (e.g., steering a car or navigating a plane when one is overall going in the right direction). ‘Repenting’ when cursed has more to do with a reversal or turn around due to going in the wrong direction.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #282

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm builds around a spectrum ranging from enjoyable experiences of being ‘blessed’ to unambiguous experiences of being ‘cursed’. This spectrum has two thresholds – (1) a threshold separating enjoyable experiences of being ‘blessed’ from painful reproving experiences of being ‘blessed’ and (2) a threshold separating these two ways to experience being ‘blessed’ from the experiences of being ‘cursed’. Some individuals loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (strain to) see the intention/assessment of ‘God’ in every experience as an indication of a person’s place on this spectrum. Others withhold such an interpretation until the indications of reproof or curse become a strong cluster of experiences that leads to an undeniable conclusion.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #281

[July 2006 journal entry]
To remain ‘religious’ means to return to(ward) the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm either (1) by repenting and stepping back into alignment with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (and, thereby, denying the ‘scrapheap’ perspective) or (2) by moving across the continuum to(ward) cursing ‘God’. The latter (i.e., cursing ‘God’) is where the Accuser expects the ‘scrapheap’ Job to end up. Analogous to the crushing consequences of entering a ‘black hole’, the former (i.e., repenting and stepping back into alignment) crushes Job’s ‘scrapheap’ integrity and the latter (i.e., cursing ‘God’) crushes the ‘scrapheap’ Job by trapping him in a ‘religious’ life of bitterness. Both paths for returning to(ward) the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm leave in place the merging of the word ‘God’ with the reality to which the word ‘God’ is intended to point. To take a ‘non-religious’ path at the ‘forsake’ fork in the road means setting aside the link between the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s nuances for ‘God’ and the reality to which the word ‘God’ is intended to point. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm views such departure as faithless, as unrighteous, as choosing darkness over light, as heresy, as apostasy.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #280

[July 2006 journal entry]
‘Forsake’ (6:14) is on a continuum that moves from trivializing or making light of across to calling down destruction (curse). ‘Forsake’ is the fork in the road for either remaining ‘religious’ or withdrawing from the ‘religious’ sphere in search of a ‘non-religious’ experience.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #279

[July 2006 journal entry]
Note that cursing ‘God’ (6:14) implies there is such a ‘God’ to curse. I eventually came to the conclusion that the concepts of ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and variously represented in Job are just that – concepts – and concepts that are not credible -- linguistically (i.e., the limitations of morphic language), philosophically, theologically, or existentially (i.e., the breadth and depth of human suffering). In other words, I eventually concluded there is no such ‘God’ to curse (a conclusion that does not close, but instead opens, the possibility of other ways to consider a transcending reality). I do not find in Job indications that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has yet drawn this conclusion.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #278

[July 2006 journal entry]
With Peterson’s translation of 6:14, the ‘scrapheap’ Job places himself among the desperate and implies he has given up on ‘God Almighty’. Is ‘forsake’ (or ‘give up’) equivalent to ‘curse’? . One nuance for ‘curse’ is to make light of. A tragic sufferer who forsakes ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) has concluded that ‘God’ is trivial, powerless, or even demonic. Cursing the ‘God’ thus forsaken would be the extreme expression of disappointment.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #277

[July 2006 journal entry]
References to ‘despair’, ‘weary’, ‘vexation’, ‘crush’ are very common in Job and Ecclesiastes:

Job 3:17 Job sees Sheol as at least a place where the weary rest.
Job 4:19 (Eliphaz) Humans cannot be righteous. They are crushed like a moth.
Job 5:2 (Eliphaz) Vexation kills the fool.
Job 5:4 (Eliphaz) Fools are crushed in the gate.
Job 5:17 (Eliphaz) A man reproved by ‘God’ is blessed. So Job should not despise the Almighty.
Job 6:2 Job comments on the immensity of his vexation.
Job 6:9 Job wishes ‘God’ would crush him.
Job 6:26 Job speaks of himself as a despairing man.
Job 10:3 Job accuses ‘God’ of despising the work of his hands.
Job 10:17 Job says ‘God’ increases his vexation toward him.
Job 15:24 (Eliphaz) The evil ones are distressed.
Job 19:18 Young children despise Job
Job 20:19 (Zophar) The wicked crush the poor.
Job 22:7 Eliphaz accuses Job of not caring for the weary.
Job 22:9 Eliphaz accuses Job of crushing orphans.
Job 24:22 ‘God’ prolongs the life of the evil – when they despair he lifts them up.
Job 34:25 (Elihu) ‘God’ crushes the mighty.
Job 36:5 (Elihu) ‘God’ does not despise anyone.
Job 36:16 (Elihu) ‘God’ allured Job out of distress.
Job 36:19 Elihu wonders if Job’s cries will keep him from distress.
Job 39:15 ‘God’ says an ostrich egg may be crushed if the ostrich leaves.
Job 42:6 Job despises himself and repents.

Eccl. 1:8 All things are weariness.
Eccl. 1:18 In much wisdom is much vexation.
Eccl. 2:20 Koheleth despairs over his labor
Eccl. 2:23 Human work is full of vexation.
Eccl. 5:17 Parents who lose all are in much vexation.
Eccl. 9:6 Wisdom is better even though the poor man’s advice was despised.
Eccl. 11:10 Remove vexation from your mind.
Eccl. 12:12 Studying is weariness.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #276

[July 2006 journal entry]
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s definition of true friendship (6:14) includes the use of the adjective ‘despair’. A feminine noun meaning ‘despair’ from the same root occurs later in the heated exchanges (9:23). The verb from which these words derive means to dissolve or to melt. What experiences with melting might have been common when the extended middle section to the story/play was composed? Ice and snow were possibilities (e.g., Mt. Hermon). Melting wax and melting metal were also common.