The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #330

[July 2006 journal entry]

The writings attributed to Paul in Christian scripture seem deeply ‘religious’ in that (1) they build off the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’, human experience, and history, (2) the methodology is not in any way empirical/historical (in other words, they do not consider seriously the caravan news as does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or what happens ‘under the sun’ as does Koheleth), (3) they do not recognize/affirm innocent suffering as an in-fact reality, (4) they argue for proportionality re the righteous being blessed and the unrighteous being cursed, (5) they separate wisdom from careful and indiscriminate consideration of human experience, (6) they expect the end of time to come soon, (7) they juxtapose faith and doubt, (8) they . . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #329

[July 2006 journal entry]

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’ approach to 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 (somewhat analogous to the entitlement mentality/culture that has developed in the United States since the 1960s).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #328

[July 2006 journal entry]
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 that is 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.)

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #327

[July 2006 journal entry]
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 and 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 the spiritual, ethical, and theological collapse for sufferers represented by the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #326

[July 2006 journal entry]
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 ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #325

[July 2006 journal entry]
Is there a concept of human freedom in Job? in Ecclesiastes? The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm interpretations of human freedom have developed in light of assumptions re divine sovereignty (e.g., Luther’s ‘two kingdom’ model or the medieval view of human freedom as recovering what one was intended by the design of creation to be). Is the idea of human 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 human freedom is a distinctive characteristic of a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and 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 condemned (a charge the three close friends attempt to force on the ‘scrapheap’ Job).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #324

[July 2006 journal entry]
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 rather than an individualistic meaning for providence?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #323

[July 2006 journal entry]
Parallels may be drawn 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 the story/play 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 add Koholeth. And then there is the task of writing into the story/play a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of ‘Jesus’ as a character.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #322

[July 2006 journal entry]
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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #321

[July 2006 journal entry]

If the narrator is responsible for the official text having the last paragraph (either by writing it or allowing it), then the narrator makes room for the retention of the simplistic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/theology as well as for consideration of the radical intention/result of the ‘scrapheap’ perspective on spirituality and ethics (affirmed in 42:7-9) inherent in the extended section with the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #320

[July 2006 journal entry]

The short version of the story/play -- i.e., prologue plus the epilogue in the last paragraph of the text (42:10-17) -- stands on its own as a separate composition. The section with the intense exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends (chs. 3-32) also stands on its own as a separate composition that openly and antithetically challenges the short version of the story/play. The whirlwind section -- perhaps including the Elihu speeches, but definitely including the 42:7-9 paragraph -- stands on its own as a separate composition. If the whirlwind ‘God’ is the narrator’s proposal re ‘God’, it seems to me:

• the narrator recognizes the simplistic form of the story/play preferred within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is severely damaged/discredited by the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends;
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ remains within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (being anchored by appeal to the sheer sovereignty of ‘God’), but now minus the (D)euteronomic reduction of human experience to a ‘righteous are blessed and unrighteous are cursed’ equation;
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind alternative to the simplistic theology common to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is somewhat analogous to the shift from the Homeric stories of the gods to Greek philosophy (from Socrates through Zeno);
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ undercuts the radical (i.e., to the root) ‘scrapheap’ insights of Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #319

[July2006 journal entry]
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends are charged with “talking nonsense” (Peterson) (RSV “according to your folly”). The thrust of the whirlwind thundering of ‘God’ seems to be to force the ‘scrapheap’ Job to admit folly or nonsense. Why would ‘God’ see a difference between the three close friends and the ‘scrapheap’ Job here? Is ‘God’ sanctioning the courage to test the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? to face offensive life experiences ‘eye to eye’? Does doing so undermine all wisdom within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #318

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson’s translation uses ‘friend’ throughout 42:7-8 where the RSV uses ‘friend’ only once (in reference to Eliphaz’s two companions). Is there one word here that can mean ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? How do the Hebrew words compare/contrast with other references in the story/play to ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? The RSV presents the literal Hebrew wording. ‘Friend’ occurs only once in reference to Bildad and Zophar whereas Job is always referred to as ‘servant’ (specifically ‘my servant’). ‘Servant’ might be a higher designation than ‘friend’ in relation to ‘God’. ‘Servant’ can indicate a close relationship.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #317

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson’s translation has “either with me or about me” where the RSV has “of me” in translating the charge of dishonesty or truthlessness ‘God’ brings against the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. It is as if the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends occur in the presence of ‘God’ who sits as a silent judge throughout the exchanges and now declares the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be the one who has prevailed. One way to cast this scene would be to have ‘God’ suddenly/dramatically illumined in a previously dark space on stage.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #316

[July 2006 journal entry]
The RSV has “wrath” (42:7). The word occurs five other times in the story/play – (19:11) “He has kindled his wrath against me” (Job), (20:23) “God will send his fierce anger upon them” (Zophar), (32:2) “Then Elihu became angry” (narrator), (32:3) “he was angry also at Job’s three friends’ (narrator about Elihu), (32:5) “Elihu became angry” (narrator). How does this wrath compare/contrast with the anger assigned ‘God’ in the prologue?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #315

[July 2006 journal entry]
Why is ‘God’ fed up with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends? How does what they have said differ so dramatically from what ‘God’ has just said in the whirlwind? The only point that stands out to me is that the three close friends had continued to defend the moral integrity and accountability of ‘God’ whereas ‘God’ as presented in the whirlwind section seems to take offense at the notion of accountability except to someone his equal (i.e., the ‘might makes right’ position). In other words, censoring the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends implies rejection of the (D)euteronomic covenant at the heart of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #314

[July 2006 journal entry]
If the story is to be staged as theater, where are the three close friends during the whirlwind exchanges between ‘God’ and the ‘scrapheap’ Job? They are present as Elihu speaks and there seems to be no dramatic break between the Elihu section and the whirlwind section. Perhaps they are off to the side, oblivious to what is happening. Perhaps they are overwhelmed by the theophany, not understanding or not wanting to understand.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #313

[July 2006 journal entry]
I think it is necessary to include 42:7-9 with the sections of the story/play between the prologue and the epilogue. There is no reference in the prologue to the three close friends speaking. Therefore, the reference to ‘God’ here is still to the whirlwind image of ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #312

[July2006 journal entry]
Does the RSV reference to “dust and ashes” mean “in my dust and ashes, I repent” or is the picture one in which the ‘scrapheap’ Job does something new/additional? Unless the sarcastic tone/meaning is maintained, the radical (i.e., to the root of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) position pressed by Job from the ‘scrapheap’ cannot be sustained. To leave the whirlwind situation here (42:6) would lead in one of two unacceptable directions – either ‘God’ throws the ‘scrapheap’ Job out of his presence or the ‘scrapheap’ Job withdraws his case.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #311

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson 42:6 translation seems a bit weak, apparently wanting to reinforce the point mentioned above. The wording corresponds with the RSV only with “I’m sorry -- forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise.” The RSV has “I despise myself”. Peterson then seems to fall away from a sarcastic tone for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. However, the RSV can still be read with a sarcastic tone. ‘Despise’ has been used before in the story/play:

5:17 – “Do not despise the discipline of the Almighty” (Eliphaz)
7:16 – “I loathe (despise) my life” (Job)
8:20 – “God will not reject (despise) a blameless person” (Bildad)
9:21 – “I loathe (despise) my life” (Job)
19:18 – “ . . . even young children despise me” (Job)
30:1 – “ . . . whose fathers I would have disdained (despised)” (Job)
31:13 – “If I have rejected (despised) the cause of my male or female slaves” (Job)
34:33 – “Will he then pay back to suit you, because you reject (despise) it?” (Elihu)
36:5 – “Surely God is mighty and does not despise any” (Elihu)

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #310

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation (42:5a) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I admit I once lived by rumors of you” (RSV “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear”). What does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind re his pre-whirlwind method for thinking about ‘God’? Peterson (42:6) returns to this question with -- “I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #309

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation (42:3b) has “babbled” and “made small talk” (RSV “uttered”). Peterson’s wording accentuates (to the point of comedy and/or sarcasm?) a self-depreciating posture for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. I would direct the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments as double entendre throughout his response.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #308

[July 2006 journal entry]
I find Peterson’s translation (42:3a) – “You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water, ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’” -- much more approachable than the RSV’s translation (i.e., “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?”). The RSV is word-for-word, but Peterson catches a very plausible nuance the RSV misses.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #307

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson’s translation (42:2) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I’m convinced” (RSV “I know”). These two options have some obvious common ground. However, the two translations also illustrate two interpretations re whether Job retains or surrenders his ‘scrapheap’ perspective. “I’m convinced” leaves the impression the whirlwind charges by ‘God’ have shaken Job from his ‘scrapheap’ views. “I know” leaves open the double entendre – i.e., saying under duress “OK . . . Uncle . . . You win . . .” -- in order to survive while holding even more firmly to his ‘scrapheap’ views. I opt for the latter interpretation.