The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #340

[October 2000 journal entry]
My ‘non-religious’ way in/out of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture is via Ecclesiastes and Job. Koheleth’s ‘under the sun’ methodology/perspective resonates with a ‘from below’ scientific methodology. Job’s statements from the ‘scrapheap’ resonate with the Einstein et al attention to the significance of the observer’s perspective for interpreting phenomena (i.e., relativity). The ‘from below’ perspective I see advocated by Koheleth and the ‘scrapheap’ Job also entails unconditional alignment with innocent sufferer/s. I propose that a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics builds upon a ‘from below’ alignment/perspective re seeing and explaining events/experiences.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #339

[October 2000 journal entry]
I have concluded that unrestricted and ‘radical’ (i.e., ‘to the root’) incorporation of the results of inquiry/scholarship pertinent to methodology is not and cannot be done while maintaining a place within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. One can do so only in a partial, guarded, and restricted (at times, secretive or ‘off the record’) way within the ‘religious’ paradigm. ‘Religious’ discourse reverts (sometimes quickly, always eventually) to un(der)examined and pre-modern methodology, assumptions, and language (as is characteristic of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as well as hymns, prayers, etc.).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #338

[October 2000 journal entry]
I am again giving considerable thought examining the story/play Job from a ‘J-E-P-D’ critical approach (esp., to the ‘God’ language of the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends). I have attempted to critique all theological reflection in the story/play by the results of modern critical scholarship consistently and persistently over the past twenty-five years (i.e., from my graduate school studies forward to today). This hermeneutic task is a critical/pivotal distinction that separates a ‘religious’ from a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics for me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #337

[July 2006 journal entry]
The story/play Job begins with a series of tragic reports of death and devastation. Then after months of futility (7:3), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical deterioration leaves him dirty, foul breathed, a mere shadow of his former frame. Food has no taste. The nights drag on. He can read abandonment, fear, ridicule in the eyes of friends, relatives, colleagues. There are several ways to enter the story/play – e.g.,

1. The question “Does Job fear God for nothing?” leads to an interpretation of tragic experiences as a test of integrity (defined as the coherence of one’s actions over a lifetime). In the prologue, Job is not charged with vices. Instead, he is suspected of being double-minded in his virtues. Why does the Accuser think he can win the prologue wager?
   
   
2. The marriage vow “For better or worse” leads to an attempt to see the story/play from the perspective of Job’s wife. Particular attention – unfortunately absent in the story/play -- should be given to the multiple complications faced daily by the spouses/partners of profound sufferers.
   
   
3. Realizing that good intentions can fail leads to a description/interpretation of the inability of Job’s spiritual community -- including his closest friends -- to remain loyal to him.
   
   
4. The claim “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” opens an examination of the chasm that separates pre-scientific and scientific (or modern) understandings of life experiences, with particular attention given to the expanding technological ways we now give and take away life in the practice of medicine.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #336

[July 2006 journal entry]
Does chance have a place in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? No. Is the “time and chance govern (happen to) all” proverb repeated/reflected elsewhere in Jewish or Christian scripture? No. From the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, Koheleth is simply wrong. At best the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm allows that ‘God’ decides the ultimate fate of an individual, but that the method/experience of that fate can be executed in a variety of ways. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s adherents attribute events not explained by the paradigm to a ‘his ways are not our ways’ mystery rather than to chance.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #335

[July 2006 journal entry]
Re “time and chance govern (happen to) all” (Eccl. 9:11) -- I understand the reference to time to mean timing. ‘Govern’ and ‘happen to’ translate a Hebrew verb that means to encounter, to meet, to befall. Does this word point to an earlier stage in the development of Hebrew thought when chance was considered to be present/manifest in human experience? when ‘God’ had not been figured out as per the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? when the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm did not yet exist? Or does this word point to a later challenge to the established ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #334

[July 2006 journal entry]
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s self-defense and strained grip on his integrity represent the beginnings of an approach to spirituality based on his strengths. The various approaches to spirituality found within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm are based on a low/weak self-understanding, with the result that either ‘God’ is relevant only to/through one’s weakness or weakness becomes the essential/full truth about one’s self. Affirmation of and appeal to human strength/s are viewed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as pride heading toward spiritual ruin.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #333

[July 2006 journal entry]
What influence do/should choices about professional and personal paths have on experiencing pressure -- at the paradigm level -- from exposure to and/or experience with the harsh realities of innocent suffering?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #331

[July 2006 journal entry]
Re ‘Jesus’ -- a method is needed that

1. distinguishes ‘Jesus’ from the prima facie impressions left by the four Gospels (e.g., Maccoby’s The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity),
2. delineates the place of ‘religion’ for ‘Jesus’ (e.g., birth place/family, synagogue upbringing, religious ceremonies, custom of attending synagogue services, interest in the use of the Temple, familiarity with scripture texts, . . .),
3. delineates ‘non-religious’ dimensions in ‘Jesus’ (e.g., immediacy of the presence of ‘God’, open-air vs. institutional settings in which to meet/teach, the Sermon on the Mount themes, his death, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #253

[October 2000 journal entry]
As the ‘religious’ sphere and its language melted down for me during my 20s and early 30s, this conviction re the human Geist survived. I did not derive or deduce this idea/view re the human Geist from a prior idea/view or an authority source. In other words, the idea/view is self-evident. Within the ‘religious’ sphere, there is no pressure/need for recognizing the human Geist to be the starting or unconditioned premise for thought about ethics and spirituality. In fact, there is pressure not to do so. Outside the ‘religious’ sphere, I have found that this conviction re the human Geist is implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledged or at least taken seriously. Once the human Geist is acknowledged, consideration of freedom, unpredictability, creativity, . . . becomes possible – which in turn makes reflection on or consideration of a transcending Geist plausible (but not necessary in order to acknowledge the human Geist). This conviction re the unconditioned or self-evident human Geist integrates the ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I have been experiencing/interpreting all these years.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #252

[October 2000 journal entry]
The anchoring/centering conviction for me is the recognition of a human spirit (Geist) that transcends detection/demonstration by the scientific method. In other words, there could be no scientific method without an independent/observing/imaginative/reflective ‘I’. This ‘more’ about being human is simultaneous to/with natural phenomenon, but not directly subject to scientific verification/examination.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #251

[October 2000 journal entry]
I find myself to be too thoroughly a ‘from below’ respondent to events/experiences to attribute confounding events/experiences to a ‘from above’ explanation. To do so would be a variation on the ‘God of the gaps’ about which Bonhoeffer wrote in his prison letters.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #250

[October 2000 journal entry]
Newton’s methodological proposal, as I understand it, was to consider natural explanations for events before appealing to supernatural explanations. I do not recall that Newton put his proposal in terms of paradigms or worldviews. The significance of doing so has to do with assumptions about those events that are not sufficiently accounted for by the initial step one takes in trying to explain any event. A person using a pre-modern/pre-scientific paradigm expects events to be explained ‘from above’, with the assumption that confounding events could be so explained but are at present beyond human understanding (e.g., “God works in a mysterious way” or “We’ll understand it all by and by”). The reverse, it seems to me, is also the case. A modern/scientific paradigm forms around a sufficient and growing number of ‘from below’ explanations of events. Confidence in this paradigm leads one to assume that confounding events will in the future be explained ‘from below’. I am not sure Newton realized (or dared to acknowledge, if he realized) that his proposal called for, in addition to a methodological shift, also and more profoundly a paradigm shift.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #249

[October 2000 journal entry]
I see Bonhoeffer in the prison letters pressing for intellectual consistency. I do too. However, in his day as well as today, a (disturbingly, to me) large number of individuals – certainly in the United States, but perhaps to a lesser degree in England/Western Europe – seem content to shift back and forth between two mutually exclusive worldviews – i.e., modern and pre-modern. I think of this inconsistency when I read in the prison letters Bonhoeffer’s objections to ‘compartmentalization’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #248

[October 2000 journal entry]

In prison Bonhoeffer was reading quite a lot in physics literature (his older brother, Karl-Friedrich, being a leading figure in the physics field in Germany). Note also Ralf Wustenberg’s recent study of the literature Bonhoeffer was reading in prison (A Theology of Life: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Religionless Christianity). His “God of the gaps” and “before God as if without God” comments in his prison letters should be read in light of this reading. Bonhoeffer may well have had in mind relativity and randomness as well as a traditional ‘laws of nature’ perspective. At least one limitation should be noted re Bonhoeffer – i.e., he had most immediately in mind Germany and western societies. Today’s global connectedness (with most only minimally introduced to the thinking that underlies modernization) is post-Bonhoeffer.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #247

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer asked in his 30 April 1944 prison letter -- “How do we speak of God -- without religion, i.e., without . . . .”? I think he was looking intently across the threshold into ‘non-religious’ territory. Before answering him, I would ask how he is nuancing the word ‘God’ in the question. I face at least two other questions re attempting to “speak of God” – an ‘if’ question and a ‘should we’ question -- before getting Bonhoeffer’s ‘how’ question. My variation on a ‘non-religious’/‘from below’ approach leads me to respond to Bonhoeffer’s question with four proposals -- (1) to speak of ‘God’ in a ‘religious’ way is no longer an option (for me, at least), (2) silence is more essential and central to experiencing ‘God’ than is any attempt to speak of ‘God’, (3) the reality to which the word ‘God’ points transcends all efforts to speak of ‘God’ (a Berdyaev-type point re anthropo-, socio-, and cosmomorphic language), and (4) attempts to speak of ‘God’ are most insightful and least vulnerable to idolatrous language when addressing who/what ‘God’ is not.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #246

[October 2000 journal entry]
I waded through most of Barth’s Church Dogmatics and other publications first during my doctoral studies and then through each year’s preparation for the current religious thinking graduate course I taught 1979-92. Barth was very critical of the ‘religious a priori’ considered in liberal thought from Schleiermacher forward to be antecedent to Christian faith/experience. He separated himself unequivocally from the ‘religious a priori’ variations found in Tillich et al and Kierkegaard et al. Barth knew he could not simply deny the results of critical scholarship (thus the error in associating him too closely with evangelical/fundamentalist thought in the United States). By proposing a ‘divine in-break’ prior to human response or theological reflection (the more traditional Reformed side of Barth), he found room to acknowledge but then marginalize the results of critical scholarship (much to the disappointment and frustration of Harnack). Barth played a central/leading role in the formation and development of the Pastors’ Emergency League in the early-1930s (from which came the Confessing Church). The urgently needed opposition to the Nazi-sympathizing ‘German Christians’ (a frightening form of a ‘religious a priori’) weighed heavy on his mind. I would say that Barth proposed/attempted a ‘revelation a priori’ (i.e., Bonhoeffer’s charge that Barth erred in opting for “a positivism of revelation”). I think Bonhoeffer was objecting to Barth’s variation on a ‘from above’ methodology and perspective.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #245

[October 2000 journal entry]
A ‘religious a priori’ is assumed within the ‘religious’ sphere both (1) in traditional, orthodox, pre-modern circles and (2) in liberal/modern circles (e.g., from Schleiermacher’s On Religion to Fosdick’s The Meaning of Prayer and beyond). Traditional, orthodox, pre-modern thought regards this ‘religious a priori’ to have been seriously diminished (according to some, fully destroyed) by/since a literal space-time ‘Fall’, with subsequent recovery coming only through a special/individual redemptive act of ‘God’. Liberal/modern thought is more optimistic about the spiritual potential/capacity of human beings.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #244

[October 2000 journal entry]
In place of a ‘religious a priori’, I would propose a ‘Geist a priori’. Several years ago, I turned to the German term Geist as a way around the front-loaded baggage that weighs down the term ‘spiritual’. Can we account for ourselves or others ‘from below’ (in the sense of exhausting natural explanations for human experience/s) without a remainder, without sensing there is something ‘more’ to being human? Note that attempting to account for ourselves or others ‘from below’ is itself an exercise of this ‘more’ and demonstrates there is something ‘more’ to being human. I have found very few who say “there is no remainder, nothing more” to being human and then live consistently with the consequences of this judgment. A ‘Geist a priori’ opens for serious consideration, but does not mandate, looking beyond the human ‘Geist’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #243

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer elsewhere in the prison correspondence used the phrase “unconscious Christians” to account for individuals who by their integrity demonstrate that the idea of a ‘religious a priori’ is no longer tenable. I am not drawn to his use of ‘unconscious Christian’. Some of the individuals with whom I am acquainted who Bonhoeffer would have considered ‘unconscious Christians’ are very consciously not Christian, at least as the term is variously defined within the ‘religious’ sphere. Also, Bonhoeffer’s use of ‘Christian’ in the 30 April 1944 letter strikes me as still very ‘religious’ in nuance. To become ‘non-religious’ is to risk losing a claim on the term Christian as variously defined within the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #242

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer, correctly I think, saw in the modern/scientific remaking of Germany and other western societies a serious/significant challenge to the longstanding ‘religious a priori’ for interpreting being human and interpreting human experience. Are humans essentially ‘religious’ -- i.e., ‘God’ conscious and ‘God’ oriented? I hear Bonhoeffer calling attention to evidence that human beings can live very stable, centered, ‘cultured’ lives without reference to ‘God’ and without ‘religion’. His most immediate examples were among his family members and his fellow conspirators. In the 30 April 1944 letter, he questioned the presupposed ‘religious a priori’ and offered his answer in terms of the “our whole 1900-year-old Christian preaching and theology”. I would go further and argue that a ‘religious a priori’ is assumed in Jewish scripture, in Christian scripture, and -- most importantly -- by ‘Jesus’. This conclusion necessitates – for a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics -- a radical (i.e., to the root) and critical rethinking of those sources as well as the subsequent history of Christian thought.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #241

[October 2000 journal entry]
Re Bonhoeffer’s reference in his 30 April 1944 prison letter to a “religious a priori” as the underpinning for “our whole 1900-year-old Christian preaching and theology”, his ‘God of the gaps’ criticism of ‘religion’ should be recalled. Until well into the 19th century, so little could be explained ‘from below’ that a ‘from above’ worldview could easily be taken for granted throughout Germany and other western societies in which modern/scientific foundations were still being laid. In other words, the image of ‘gaps’ itself implies a shift from a ‘from above’ perspective to a ‘from below’ perspective due to scientific breakthroughs already achieved and those anticipated with increasing confidence.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #240

[October 2000 journal entry]
In the 30 April 1944 letter, Bonhoeffer calls attention to the inconsistency of those “who honestly describe themselves as religious”. I would go further and say it is not possible to be consistently ‘religious’ and participate fully in a modern, scientifically shaped/informed society. I would also go further and note, with considerable dismay, that most “who honestly describe themselves as religious” seem not to be existentially disturbed by living lives that contradict their ‘religious’ language. But then, I remind myself that the resolve to center on the ‘outer line’ and to be fully engaged in the present situation is a ‘non-religious’ resolve, not a ‘religious’ resolve. Those “who honestly describe themselves as religious” seem – to use Bonhoeffer’s terms -- content with ‘partiality’ or with ‘compartmentalizing God’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #239

[October 2000 journal entry]
I do not think Bonhoeffer – in his 30 April 1944 prison letter -- was jettisoning everything that could be called ‘inward’ or ‘conscience’. However, just as ‘religion’ is a burdened term (to the point that I have long since stopped using the term), so also are the terms inward and conscience. In my variation on a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics, inward has to do with the reflective side of an ‘action-reflection’ rhythm for living. I am drawn to the Quaker idea of simultaneity -- i.e., maturing to the point of experiencing the temporal and the eternal at the same time. Conscience is very important, but should not be the single or final determinant of ethical decision-making. Much is done in good conscience that falls far short of a unifying, altruistic, and self-sacrificing way of life that accentuates respect for ‘the least of these’. To use Bonhoeffer’s phrase, the ‘outer line’ experience should set the agenda for individual and corporate introspection. On what are Bonhoeffer’s 30 April 1944 thoughts about spirituality and ethics based? I do not expect to decipher a very finished answer from the prison letters. I think Bonhoeffer was still in a very early stage of tracing out – beyond the threshold of the ‘religious’ sphere -- the implications of a ‘non-religious’ approach. For me, the basis is an interweaving of perspectives illustrated (1) by Koholeth’s inability to separate his thought from those in tragically desperate circumstances and (2) by Job’s wife who is disturbingly presented in the story as ambivalent at best re maintaining respect for Job. I am convinced that all ‘religious’ bases for spirituality and ethics melt down or die when pressed scientifically and existentially ‘from below’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #238

[October 2000 journal entry]
Re Bonhoeffer’s reference to “the time of inwardness and conscience” (30 April 1944 prison letter) -- I tend to think of inwardness and conscience separately. What Bonhoeffer may have had in mind re inwardness is the clearer of the two to me. I think he was objecting to a turn inward and, therefore, away from one’s present situation. Such inwardness implies a compartmentalizing that is not tolerated by a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality. For Bonhoeffer, ‘God’ is to be experienced in the concrete realities we face, ahead of us in a sense, pursuing reconciliation -- however hard to detect that presence may be. Bonhoeffer sensed a cowardliness in the turn inward that was piously adopted by so many in Germany -- including the Confessing Church -- by/after 1937. Also inwardness offers another example of trying to find gaps where ‘God’ might still be found/relevant in the modern world. I am not so sure what to hear in his reference to conscience. I need to look more closely for clues in his prison letters and in his Ethics. My primary focus to date has been on his discussion of conscience in his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay. My guess at this point would be that the Hitler era had forced decisions with no ‘clear conscience’ options for those who remained focused on and resistant to that horrific situation. Also, he may have heard/known many who claimed a ‘clear conscience’ in their dismissal of or support for Hitler.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #237

[September 2000 journal entry]
I do think the ‘religionless’ idea/concept is time bound as a serious alternative for individuals and societies. Until the various social experiments from the 17th century forward with reorganizing politically, economically, educationally, and ethically ‘from below’ (i.e., the underpinnings being evident in democracies and in scientific inquiry/decision-making) -- the official and majority perspectives from antiquity to the late 18th century were variations on a ‘from above’ (i.e., ‘religious’) a priori. Here lies the radical and revolutionizing significance of the secularization that eventually marginalized ‘from above’ institutions (e.g., monarchy, nobility, religion/church, . . .). I do not think secularization necessarily results in a spiritually empty secularism, naturalism, materialism or a spirituality that is cutoff from ‘Jesus’. However, without considerable care and substantial existential courage/risk, superficial approaches to ‘religionless’ spirituality tend to sprout pretty quickly/easily.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #236

[September 2000 journal entry]
I have only recently noticed Bonhoeffer’s references to time in his 30 April 1944 prison letter. There may be a clue here re his evolving thought about ‘religion’ -- i.e., that he associated ‘religion’ with a period in the history, with ‘religion’ phasing into the narrative around Constantine’s rise and phasing out of the narrative past the early 18th century. As I have wrestled with what the word/phenomenon ‘religion’ means to/for me, the nuances for ‘religion’ I have in mind appear throughout Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as well as throughout Christian history. In other words, I do not see ‘religion’ to be time bound or period specific (as did Bonhoeffer, at least at this early point in his thinking about ‘religion/less’).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #235

[September 2000 journal entry]
I think Bonhoeffer’s reference to ‘Christ’ in his 30 April 1944 prison letter is still very ‘religious’ (somewhat parallel to the ‘scrapheap’ Job continuing to use the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #234

[September 2000 journal entry]
In his 30 April 1944 prison letter, what/who did Bonhoeffer include (or exclude) re ‘Christianity’? As a historian and with my variation on a ‘religionless’ approach, I would give a ‘from below’ answer and begin with a historical/social definition of ‘religion’. Bonhoeffer, from his doctoral studies forward, took seriously a sociology of religion explanation of Christianity. Remember Max Weber was a neighbor and family friend. With the Confessing Church as his central case in point, Bonhoeffer kept expecting through the 1930s to find a remainder in expressions of ‘Christianity’ for which sociologists of religion could not account. In the 30 April 1944 letter, I suspect he had both these perspectives in mind, with his thought about ‘religion’ correlating with a sociologist of religion perspective and his thought about ‘religionless’ correlating with his search for the remainder.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #233

[September 2000 journal entry]
It seems to me that faith as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere is unequivocally separated from doubt, thus imposing severe constraints/limitations on thinking/inquiry. Faith -- understood as that which is trusted -- in a ‘religionless’ sense (at least for me) entails integrating, protecting, embracing an essential place for doubt.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #232

[July 2006 journal entry]
The only time or place where conversations ever ring unambiguously true to me is a time or place that is separate from the language, the liturgy, and the theology taken for granted within every ‘religious’ community with which I am familiar.

Fragment -- #320

[October 2000 journal entry]
In addition to contributing to the demonstration of certain ‘laws of nature’, Newton also addressed the implications for acknowledging such ‘laws’ when he proposed that natural (i.e., ‘from below’) explanations for events/experiences should first be considered and, if adequate, adopted without appeal to supernatural interpretations. This method reverses pre-modern/pre-scientific ‘religious’ methods. Not surprisingly, Newton struggled with the theological orthodoxy of his day (e.g., the ‘Trinity’ doctrine) and faced charges of heresy. In Newton’s time (late 17th century) and for some time thereafter, insight into ‘laws of nature’ did not yet account for many or most events/experiences. A ‘from below’ method for interpreting events/experiences did not for some time filter into public/common reasoning sufficiently for the pre-modern/pre-scientific paradigm to be seriously challenged or to give way.

Fragment -- #319

[October 2000 journal entry]
It is my understanding that in antiquity (i.e., prior to the formation of a modern/scientific paradigm) the term ‘miracle’ was used in reference to events/experiences that were surprising or marvelous manifestations of the assumed work of ‘God’ (or ‘Gods’ or celestial powers or . . .) in managing/sustaining nature. Several words would have been available in antiquity to refer to such marvels. What was not available or considered, other than for an exceptional few, was something akin to the Newton-forward ‘laws of nature’ perspective which a ‘miracle’ would violate/suspend.

Fragment -- #318

[October 2000 journal entry]
I was asked recently, “Are most humans intellectually lazy?” Generally speaking, I am convinced the answer must be “yes” -- in and out of the ‘religious’ sphere. The phrase ‘intellectually lazy’ invites a spectrum to sort out the traits of this laziness. I do think one of the subtleties of societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) is the invitation/permission to be intellectually lazy. I think the author of Ecclesiastes and the narrator of Job in different ways challenge the false sense of security and the intellectual laziness characteristic of ‘religious a priori’ thinking.

Fragment -- #317

[November 2006 journal entry]

I am enthused and relieved by the mid-term election results. Bush et al have – without any appearance of awareness or accountability – tragically driven our society into the proverbial ditch. The Democratic majorities’ highest priority should/must be to take sufficiently radical (i.e., to the root) measures re the corrupt/ing DC milieu to restore the minimal degree of respect/trust within the voting public necessary for Congress to function. Only then will there be a chance to recover integrity at the national/international levels.

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.

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.