The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #36

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 the 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 evidence for as well as the meaning of being ‘blessed’ steadily shift as the 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.

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 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 re 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?

Why did the three close friends not advocate for the ‘scrapheap’ Job (e.g., the story of Abraham pleading for Lot), given their long friendship with him? Why does the ‘scrapheap’ Job expect such? Is there any indication the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is melting down for his three close friends?

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/hollow/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 points to caravan travelers (6:18; see also 6:19, 8:13, 30:12). (Peterson also has “merchants” and “tourists”.) Peterson’s “tourists” is quite a stretch for antiquity. Few people took long vacations in antiquity. ‘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 saw more widely than those who had not traveled. They had time to ponder what they had 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 away from water or into greater danger as winter approached. 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.

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.

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?

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 “go out on a limb” have entailed, had the ‘scrapheap’ Job so urged his three close friends 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.

When compared with the RSV, Peterson (6:24-27) seems to be translating rather freely. How well does his translation align with the Hebrew text (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 -- #35

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.

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.

With Peterson’s translation, 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.

Note that cursing ‘God’ 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 the story/play Job are just that – concepts – and concepts that are not linguistically (i.e., the limitations of morphic language) or existentially (i.e., the breadth and depth of human suffering) credible. 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 indication that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has yet drawn this conclusion.

I see ‘forsake’ as the endpoint of a spectrum that moves from trivializing or making light of across to calling down destruction (curse). ‘Forsake’ is the fork in the road re either remaining ‘religious’ or withdrawing from the ‘religious’ sphere in search of a ‘non-religious’ experience. 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 spectrum to(ward) a ‘curse God’ way of being. The latter (i.e., a ‘curse God’ way of being) 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., a ‘cursing God’ way of being) 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 -- #34

What attitudes/emotions should be attributed to the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14) re friendship? re his friends? Who does he have in mind – a wider circle of friends with a corresponding shallow expectation or a smaller/inner circle of close friends with a corresponding deep/profound expectation? Is he repeating a familiar proverb? There are three possible parallels in Proverbs for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s remarkable statement about friendship: (1) “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (17:17), (2) “There are friends who pretend to be friends, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (18:24), (3) “Wealth brings many new friends, but a poor man is deserted by his friend” (19:4). Note the phrase ‘by his friend’ in the third parallel with Proverbs is identical to the wording used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14).

If the ‘scrapheap’ Job has some such proverb in mind, his being abandoned by the wider circle of friends weakens the proverb’s credibility. As his wider circle of friends disappears, the proverb’s credibility depends on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. The implications of their failure to meet the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s expectation of friendship (6:14) are existentially profound.

How should 6:14 be translated? I am drawn to Peterson’s “When desperate people give up on God Almighty, their friends, at least, should stick with them” (which follows the NIV). The RSV has “Those who withhold kindness from a friend forsake the fear of the Almighty”. This translation seems awkward and out of sync with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. Peterson’s linking “give up on God Almighty” with “desperate people” rather than with “friends” makes more sense, has more force. The RSV translation sounds more like a generalizing proverb than a pained statement by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.

The Hebrew wording is – “For the one who despairs, from his friends, steadfast love; and the fear of Shaddai he forsakes.” The ‘he’ would seem to refer to the one who despairs, with ‘despair’ further defined as forsaking/abandoning ‘God’. The singular ‘he’ would not agree with the plural ‘friends’. 6:14 is the only place where the Hebrew word for ‘steadfast love’ or ‘loving kindness’ occurs in Job. The word does not occur in Ecclesiastes.

What should a true friend’s loyalty imply? Are there any limits? The answers are pivotal. One direction leads the friend safely back to the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The other direction leads the friend to a ‘non-religious’ path separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ language.

My view of Proverbs wisdom is that such wisdom does not know or fully/indiscriminately/deeply consider tragic human suffering. The wisdom in Proverbs does not appear to have been carved out of serious/radical engagement with the harsh realities of human suffering. I can imagine conversations Job and his three close friends had shared in which they had made unconditional promises of loyalty to each other. And I can imagine the public teaching Job and his three close friends had done re ‘friendship’. The first words from the ‘scrapheap’ Job to his three close friends (ch. 3) abruptly begin to test their friendships down into the root. What had the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends inferred from observing him in silence for days? Were they already feeling the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm wobble/buckle underneath them? The three close friends are soon saying, “All bets are off. This is not what we had in mind by ‘adversity’.” Their kindness dissolves. They assume a posture loyal to ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) that supersedes, reshapes, and diminishes their loyalty to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. In other words, they could not be loyal to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without being disloyal to ‘God’ (who, they all – including Job -- agree, has withdrawn from Job) and without validating/endorsing the meltdown of ‘God’ language for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. They can no longer consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be wise. What is the counsel in Proverbs re treating ‘fools’? Do the three close friends follow such wisdom in their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job should realize/anticipate their confusion and let his three close friends off the hook, freeing them to depart or to commit themselves afresh with their eyes now fully open to the severe and tragic realities of human suffering. Would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be justified in expecting or insisting that his three close friends enter the ‘God’ language meltdown with him?

I have found myself for many years struggling to figure out how to be with others without pulling them into such a meltdown. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is being swept into a ‘God’ language meltdown that leaves him hopeless (from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective) whereas his three close friends (consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) are clinging to the more hopeful idea of being refined or having character built by ‘God’. For many years, I have been using ‘meltdown’ as a metaphorical description of the experience that drove the shift from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’ for me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #33

The ‘scrapheap’ Job now (6:8-13) seems clearly on the outer edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’ language. Interpreting his thoughts as sarcastic, ironic, even cynical would not be premature or inappropriate.

Peterson’s “squash me like a bug” is vivid. But the RSV seems to sustain the bluntness of the prayer better with “crush me”. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s view of what ‘pleases God’ include an appeal to be squashed/crushed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have a place for a death wish? Is the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s appeal serious? Such an appeal challenges the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. If the ‘scrapheap’ Job is hoping to end it all, he is saying, “Why not let those arrows hit a vital organ and just take me out? Show some mercy in your wrath.” However, it is also possible to read him as not yet serious. He may still want to accuse ‘God’ to his face.

Remember the ‘whose hand is afflicting Job’ bantering between ‘God’ and the Accuser in the prologue? The ‘scrapheap’ Job reveals his conclusion in his wish that ‘God’ would “let loose his hand” (RSV). I wonder how his wife hears this prayer. Perhaps as -- “He’s coming around to my view of this mess?” Does she now empathize with him? Does she hear his prayer as an accusation against ‘God’?

Peterson (6:10c) has “blasphemed” (RSV “denied”) and (6:14) “give up” (RSV “forsake”). Are these terms equivalent to cursing ‘God’? ‘Denied’ can mean to conceal or to cover as well as to rebel. The ‘scrapheap’ Job may think he has not yet cursed ‘God’, but he senses he is very close. Peterson is correct to accent this implication with “before being pressed past the limits” (6:10).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions (6:11-12) sound rhetorical. Is he posing these questions to his three close friends? If so, does he think they hear the questions as rhetorical? No doubt the three close friends see a glorious prize awaiting them if they succeed in getting the ‘scrapheap’ Job to repent.

What is the hope, the end, the future about which the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks in these questions? The immediate context suggests he is longing/searching for the answer to his prayer (6:8-9). However, I see him thinking more broadly. If so, what does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm claim to offer the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Perhaps restoration if he repents. Perhaps a deeper spiritual life if he can withstand the educational experience of his suffering. To the contrary, the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no prize (including the bounty described in the epilogue) that can be worth this trauma.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job is convinced his resources have been all but depleted by ‘God’. Peterson has “Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!” (6:13). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has no ear for such reassurance as -- “You will not be tested above that which you are able to bear”. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is crumbling around the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The paradigm’s defenders eventually argue that individuals who wither rather than grow under such punishment/discipline turn from ‘God’. They might also argue the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not trying to see the good the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm promises will come from his tragedy.

Here (6:1-7) is the second reference in the story/play to “God Almighty” (Peterson) or “the Almighty” (RSV). The meaning of Shaddai is debated – e.g., ‘mountain one’, ‘almighty’, ‘powerful one’. Some suggest a possible derivation from a verb that means to deal violently with, to despoil, to devastate, to ruin. If presented as a play, how should the ‘scrapheap’ Job utter “God Almighty” – cynically? fearfully? defiantly? I vote for a defiant tone. Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, how does ‘almighty’ relate to ‘sovereign’? to ‘just’/‘righteous’? to ‘mercy’? It seems clear the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not pointing to ‘God Almighty’ for a demonstration of ‘might for right’ (i.e., King Arthur’s radical vision in Camelot). The emphasis is certainly on having power rather than on being just or being righteous or having mercy.

Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expect/demand the cowering and the silence implied by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:5-7) and demonstrated by the prologue Job as well as the whirlwind section’s ending later in the story/play? Yes. They might respond initially in defiance, but a ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community expects (pressures) the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs eventually (1) to accept the pain/suffering as the intent/will of ‘God’ and, therefore, as just and as beyond question and (2) to repent of the initial defiance.

Peterson has “I’d at least have the satisfaction of not having blasphemed the Holy God, before being pressed past the limits” (6:10). Peterson’s “satisfaction” seems a bit weak when compared with the RSV’s “I would even exult in unrelenting pain”. Peterson’s ‘not yet’ suggestion about cursing ‘God’ seems on target re the direction and pace of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. If the RSV translation is followed, what “words of the Holy One” does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind? What would it mean to deny such words? To deny “words of the Holy One” – as variously understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- would put the ‘scrapheap’ Job outside his ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community. Would any of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends stay with him? Peterson’s translation is very free flowing, but captures the basic meaning. However, the reference to unrelenting pain in the Hebrew wording should be retained. The ‘scrapheap’ Job senses how close he is to crossing the line. Given more time, will he curse ‘God’ as the Accuser predicts?

Peterson (6:11b) has “future” (RSV “end”). What future/end has motivated the ‘scrapheap’ Job to this point? Is he confirming what the Accuser proposes in the prologue – i.e., that Job’s noble behavior prior to his tragedies had been motivated by self-serving ambitions? Yes. Are self-serving ambitions characteristic of ‘religion’ and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes. A sustainable ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality builds on an alternative to self-serving ambitions.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #32

Does the word for “answered” (6:1) refer specifically to questioning/answering? to dialogue? Or might the word simply suggest the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks, whether to Eliphaz or to himself or . . . ? He has sharp words for Eliphaz (and subsequently for Bildad and Zophar). If the story is being staged as a play, should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be looking at Eliphaz or to the heavens or, perhaps, toward the audience? Everyone has abandoned him, with his three close friends now beginning to place responsibility for his plight squarely on his shoulders. Looking to the audience implies the ‘scrapheap’ Job is searching for someone who can/will truly/clearly/patiently listen. Looking to the audience presses each one in the audience to ask if s/he can/will be the character missing in the story/play – i.e., the character whose presence with the ‘scrapheap’ Job does not harm him further. Or perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job just stares aimlessly, indicating he no longer has any confidence there is such a character.

Peterson’s wording suggests the ‘scrapheap’ Job is aggressive and energetic – e.g., an exclamation point (6:3a) and “Is it any wonder that I’m screaming like a caged cat?” (6:3b). The RSV suggests a more subdued/fatigued ‘scrapheap’ Job – “Oh” (6:2) and “Therefore my words have been rash” (6:3b). I would stage the ‘scrapheap’ Job more along the RSV’s subdued/fatigued line. Perhaps I think Peterson is a bit off the mark because I do not hear the ‘scrapheap’ Job screaming in his first remarks (or having enough strength to scream at any point, for that matter). The Hebrew word means to talk wildly. The verb occurs only three times (Prov. 20:25 and Obadiah 16 as well as Job 6:3). If the RSV’s “rash” is followed, is the ‘scrapheap’ Job making a confession? or offering an explanation that invites his three close friends to show him some tolerance and that asks them not to take his words too seriously? If so, then he is not yet to the point of having thought fully/radically through the implications of attributing his situation to ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm). Another angle is to hear sarcasm when the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks.

A word study for “misery” (Peterson) or “vexation” (RSV) would be useful. The Hebrew word (6:2a) occurs in Job (5:2, 6:2, 10:17, 17:7) in one form and in Ecclesiastes (1:18, 2:23, 7:3, 7:9, 11:10) in another form. The idea is unwarranted pain/suffering. The word for “load” (Peterson) or “calamity” (RSV) (6:2b) -- used only here -- is based on the Hebrew verb ‘to be’, from which the word ‘God’ is derived.

‘Vexation’ makes me think of spiritual/intellectual pain. ‘Misery’ makes room for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical/social suffering. The ‘scrapheap’ Job seems to claim both forms of agony during his responses. Are both forms of agony present here?

With due regard for the severity of his situation, I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job is excessive in his assessment of his misery’s weight. His conclusion that his misery outweighs the sand of the sea sounds as if he thinks no other person’s pain/suffering could be (has been) as heavy as is his pain/suffering. At the same time, I shy away from seeking relief in “there’s always someone worse off than I”. There are serious risks when any sufferer thinks s/he is in the worst situation possible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job offers analogies and metaphors (6:1-3) in line with the appeal with which he begins his response to Eliphaz. However, in doing so he seems to be moving quickly (unavoidably?) to/past the edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to a theological position the guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (represented in the story/play by the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends) find heretical and he finds untenable. What meaning/s does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm sanction for the phrase “the arrows of God”? Surely not the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s contention that ‘God’ shoots poison arrows into innocent persons. The ‘scrapheap’ Job describes his thoughts/words as poisoned and attributes his poisoned condition to ‘God’. The ‘scrapheap’ Job knows he is on the outer edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – far removed from the core/center – as/when he attributes his current status to the direct and calculated action of ‘God’.

Peterson (6:4c) has “God has dumped the whole works on me” (RSV “the terrors of God are arrayed against me”). Peterson’s translation seems weak, almost trivializing. The Hebrew wording is as forceful as the RSV translation, if not more so. How the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees the terrors arrayed around him is important. The terrors have been carefully positioned. He is surrounded with strategically selected terrors that are aimed at particularly vulnerable areas. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is not thinking ‘God’ has dumped these terrors on him; he is thinking ‘God’ has organized them into a massive, orderly, and devastating offensive against him.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job turns to animal analogies (6:5). How common are such analogies other than in the story/play’s whirlwind section? ‘Wild ass’ appears also in 11:12 and 39:5. ‘Ox’ appears in 24:3. Peterson’s “so don’t expect me to keep quiet in this” makes explicit the implication in these analogies. What makes a wild ass bray or an ox low over its food -- the scarcity? the taste? satisfaction and contentment? If it would be possible to say the following to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him or falling in with his three close friends, I would look for a way to say to him, “Yes, I do expect more from a human being than I expect from a donkey or a cow.”

Re the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s next question – “Do you see what God has dished out for me?” -- a food may not taste good but can still be eaten for nourishment without nausea. However, the ‘scrapheap’ Job adds another forceful analogy – nausea (6:6-7). This analogy is particularly significant in light of the place this metaphor holds in existential thought about the human predicament. The staging/directing needs to make vivid to the audience that the ‘scrapheap’ Job is nauseated by what ‘God’ “has dished out”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #31

[The primary references to the text for the Job story/play come from Eugene Peterson’s translation -- The Message of Job. I have copied from Peterson’s translation the “scrap heap’ Job’s response to his close friend Eliphaz (6:1-30). Postings #32-#38 follow.]

6.1Job answered:

2If my misery could be weighed, if you could pile the whole bitter load on the scales, 3it would be heavier than all the sand of the sea! Is it any wonder that I’m screaming like a caged cat? 4The arrows of God Almighty are in me, poison arrows – and I’m poisoned all through! God has dumped the whole works on me. 5Donkeys bray and cows moo when they run out of pasture. 6So don’t expect me to keep quiet in this. Do you see what God has dished out for me? 7It’s enough to turn anyone’s stomach! Everything in me is repulsed by it – it makes me sick.

8All I want is an answer to one prayer, a last request to be honored. 9Let God step on me – squash me like a bug and be done with me for good. 10I’d at least have the satisfaction of not having blasphemed the holy God, before being pressed past the limits. 11Where’s the strength to keep my hopes up? What future do I have to keep me going? 12Do you think I have nerves of steel? Do you think I’m made of iron? 13Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!

14When desperate people give up on God Almighty, their friends, at least, should stick with them. 15But my brothers are fickle as a gulch in the desert – 16one day they’re gushing with water from melting ice and snow cascading out of the mountains, 17but by midsummer they’re dry, gullies baked dry in the sun. 18Travelers who spot them and go out of their way for a drink, end up in a waterless gulch and die of thirst. 19Merchant caravans from Tema see them and expect water, tourists from Sheba hope for a cool drink. 20They arrive so confident – but what a disappointment! They get there, and their faces fall! 21And you, my so-called friends, are no better – there’s nothing to you! One look at a hard scene and you shrink in fear. 22It’s not as though I asked you for anything – I didn’t ask you for one red cent – 23nor did I beg you to go out on a limb for me. So why all this dodging and shuffling?

24Confront me with the truth and I’ll shut up, show me where I’ve gone off the track. 25Honest words never hurt anyone, but what’s the point of all this pious bluster? 26You pretend to tell me what’s wrong with my life, but treat my words of anguish as so much hot air. 27Are people mere things to you? Are friends just items of profit and loss?

28Look me in the eye! Do you think I’d lie to your face? 29Think it over – no double-talk! Think carefully – my integrity is on the line! 30Can you detect anything false in what I say? Don’t you trust me to discern good from evil?

Fragment #24

[1994] The stubborn realities of offensive suffering make the temptation to anesthetize ourselves with distractions seem irresistible. Many Cabaret masters of ceremonies are nearby, urging us to flee to experiences where “life is beautiful”. We eventually realize that the relief they offer is shallow, providing no more than a veneer over our insecurity and our troubled conscience. By thinning out the ‘good’ in life as well as turning away from the ‘tragic’ in life, cabarets leave us most removed from reality.

To live and work among the vulnerable requires balance for experiencing both joy and heartache. We begin to recover this balance when the unsatisfactory and empty consequences of despairing resignation or escapism drive us back toward indiscriminately facing life’s varying circumstances. More positively, we need an approach to spirituality and ethics through which we acquire instincts analogous to an old farm animal making its way alone back to the barn or a boxer continuing to answer the bell though dulled by several rounds of fighting. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics that encourages familiarity with a host of witnesses, the recollection of whose faithfulness draws the weary servant back to his/her post. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics by which the search for meaning in offensive life circumstances does not harm the sufferers by destroying their integrity. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics that permits expressions of doubt and confusion when the search for meaning fails.

It seems that many – sufferers as well as those who care for them -- who lose the footing they brought to tragic suffering are not argued out of those ideas/views. Instead, they have seen more than they or their approach to spirituality and ethics can bear. Suffering can eclipse/melt down every concept of ‘God’ with which I am familiar. But an attempt to regain balance must stop short of concluding that the realities of innocent suffering should be avoided. The sufferers cannot so flee.

Every person who dares to be genuinely present with the disadvantaged and dismembered should expect to grow faint. When they do, they face what may be their most crucial spiritual and ethical test. They should affirm what vision they still have, confess their disappointments, and seek for relief. Then, by lack of an alternative that maintains their integrity or by the recollection of encouraging experiences with the disadvantaged and dismembered, they can find the resolve to return to the journey with renewed courage.

Fragment #23

[1994] I have been thinking often -- since a few nights ago when we used Psalm 15 for our evening meal prayer -- about the proposition that “blessed is he who keeps his vow, even if it hurts”.

Fragment #22

[1994] ‘Homo sapiens’ – There should also be variations that would highlight such traits as economics, ethics, technology, being humane, . . . -- all variations in addition to Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”. The paths are mixed and varied re coming to consciousness/awareness of one’s ‘self’. A path may be harsh/destructive (e.g., rebelling against an abuser). Once aware of one’s ‘self’, then one faces the question of accountability to others.

Fragment #21

[1994] I am essentially ‘liberal’ in that

1. I believe in the core goodness of human beings,
2. I affirm human history and culture,
3. I am committed to unrestricted critical inquiry.

Fragment #20

[1994] A ‘paradigm shift’ is far more than a matter of sifting through options analogous to picking out a suit of clothes or looking for a box in which to mail/store something. Such analogies correspond to searching through (or perhaps creating new) variations within the accepted paradigm. In stark contrast, a ‘paradigm shift’ is far more fundamental and radical.

Fragment #19

[1994] I recently read Reichenbach’s From Copernicus to Einstein. The idea that scientists eventually forget the primitive wonder and become disenchanted with the subject matter has variations in so many other academic/intellectual disciplines. I think possible sources for such disenchantment include familiarity, concentration on the mechanics of the inquiry, time constraints, compartmentalization, lack of reflective skills, fatigue, fear, routine.

I am especially drawn to Reichenbach’s observation – “. . . The significance of Copernicus lies precisely in the fact that he broke with an old belief apparently supported by all immediate sensory experiences. He could do it only because he had at his disposal a considerable amount of accumulated scientific thought and scientific data, only because he himself had followed the road of disillusionment in knowledge before he glimpsed the new and broader perspectives” (pp. 13-14). The experience and concept of being disillusioned have been for me inseparable from my aggressive critique of ‘religion’ and my move toward being ‘with the world face to face’ in order to search for an approach to spirituality and ethics that is anchored in a realistic ‘eyes opened’ consideration of human experience. To be disillusioned is to be moved closer to reality. To be disillusioned is also to suffer a devastating blow to motivation, purpose, courage, resiliency, inspiration. Reconstituting one’s self/center whenever on the other side of being disillusioned is essential to sustaining the search.

I now see more clearly the symbolic significance of the invention and history of the telescope. Note: Galileo’s comment to Kepler – “I am very grateful that you have taken interest in my investigations from the very first glance at them and thus have become the first and almost the only person who gives full credence to my contentions; nothing else could be really expected from a man with your keenness and frankness. But what will you say to the noted philosophers of our university who, despite repeated invitations, still refuse to take a look either at the moon or the telescope and so close their eyes to the light of truth?” Galileo then described how another scientist refused to look through the telescope “because it would only confuse him” (p. 23-24).

Nothing shows better the greatness of a scholar’s character than his/her conduct in the face of failure.

Fragment #18

[1994] “We know and submit to dozens of social, economic, and psychological imperatives.” (Cf. Walker Percy by Robert Coles, p. xvi.) How many did Percy think ‘know’? Who are the ‘we’ he had in mind? How many who begin to ‘know’ are changed by that knowledge? How many passively ‘submit’? Can one fully ‘know’ without breaking away from the ‘imperatives’? What rationale/s would justify the decision knowingly and actively to ‘submit’ after being free to envision being together without ‘imperatives’?

Fragment #17

[1993] I have been thinking about three dreams this week. (1) Martin Luther King Day (January 18) reminded me of his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech thirty years ago. (2) In his inaugural address (January 20), President Clinton referenced his life-long dream to be president. (3) Audrey Hepburn, who died this week (January 21), was rescued by a UNICEF-type effort after WWII (she lost family members in the Holocaust). She was a life-long supporter of UNICEF. When asked if she thought there would ever be a time when UNICEF would not be needed, she responded – “That’s my dream.”

Fragment #16

[1994] Metaphor – the Cheshire Cat. [from Alice in Wonderland]

“I wish you wouldn’t keep appearing and vanishing so suddenly; you make one quite giddy!” “All right,” said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. “Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice; “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!” . . . As Alice observed, “It looked good-natured.” Still it had very long claws and a great many teeth. So she felt she ought to treat the Cat with respect.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #30

As a transition signal, Peterson (5:17-18) has “So” (RSV “Behold”). Is Eliphaz drawing his conclusions from his immediately preceding statements? Or does he look back to the beginning of his response to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? ‘Behold’ is a better translation than ‘so’ if the latter implies what follows is a logical deduction from or consequence of what has gone before. Eliphaz changes tactics near the end of his argument. Some have suggested translations such as ‘look’ or ‘listen up’. It seems to me Eliphaz is grasping for something positive to say to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Perhaps to his surprise, he thinks he has stumbled upon it -- i.e., ‘God’ is making Job a better, stronger person!

Eliphaz shifts to repeated references to ‘you’ (5:17ff). Is he speaking specifically to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Or is it possible he is climbing oratorical heights, with the ‘scrapheap’ Job falling further and further out of focus? I think the latter.

Eliphaz introduces the “correction”/“discipline” motif to explain the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight. Has this line of thought been used previously by Eliphaz? Is this interpretation used subsequently in the story/play? What place does this motif have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? The word for ‘correction’ occurs throughout the story -- 6:25-26 (Job), 9:33 (Job), 13:10, 15 (Job), 15:3 (Eliphaz), 16:21 (Job), 19:5 (Job), 22:4 (Eliphaz), 23:7 (Job), 32:12 (Elihu), 40:2 (‘God’). The word for ‘discipline’ occurs less often -- 20:3 (Zophar), 33:16 (Elihu), though it is found frequently in Proverbs. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm holds the ‘correction’/‘discipline’ motif as a trump card to explain suffering that seems at odds with the paradigm – e.g., if the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not being punished, perhaps he is being blessed with suffering to make him a better person and prepare him for greater use by and honor from ‘God’.

A word study for ‘despise’ would be helpful. The word – which carries the idea of being rejected -- occurs a few times in the story/play, most often used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- 7:16 (Job), 8:20 (Bildad), 9:21 (Job), 10:3 (Job), 19:18 (Job;), 30:1 (Job), 31:13 (Job).

Why does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ wound or smite? The word translated ‘wound’ means pain. The pain can be either physical or mental. In this text, the causative is used (i.e., to cause pain). The verb form occurs in 14:22 (Job). The word translated ‘smite’ means to wound severely, to shatter. The word also occurs in 26:12 (Job). Eliphaz may have ‘tough love’ in mind. However, I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job is thinking of ‘God’ more in terms of a chronically penitent alcoholic parent who harms when intoxicated. Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) seems to be thinking along similar lines with his conclusion that there is no consistency in whether or not the ‘hand of God’ crushes or cradles what it holds.

Peterson (5:19) uses “disaster” and “calamity” (RSV “trouble”). The Hebrew word means straits or distress. The word occurs also in 27:9 (Job), 7:11 (Job), 15:24 (Eliphaz), 36:16 (Elihu), 36:19 (Elihu), and 38:23 (‘God’) as well as twenty-four times in the Psalms. The word does not appear in the prologue to the story/play.

Is Eliphaz associating (equating?) trouble with evil? What would doing so imply for the concept of ‘God’ in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Is Eliphaz admitting here that the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s tragedies are in essence/fact evil? Perhaps, rather than ontological evil, he considers the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight evil because he is in obvious pain. However, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attributes both good and evil to ‘God’.

Is Eliphaz (5:20) attributing famine and war to the will of ‘God’ too? How do those loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm avoid this deduction? This same question applies to all the tragic circumstances referenced by Eliphaz. Does the view attributed to ‘Jesus’ re ‘God’ causing rain to fall on the just and unjust (Matthew 5:43-48) include devastating hurricanes, typhoons, flooding, . . ?

‘Trouble’ (3:17) appears often in the story/play. Here the wicked are blamed for causing trouble. Are there other sources? The ‘scrapheap’ Job focuses on ‘God’ as the source of his trouble. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm lead to this view? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or any other character in the story/play draw on the idea of an Accuser as the ultimate source of such trouble?

Is Eliphaz saying a blessed (righteous) person (5:17) never starves in famine or is never wounded/killed in war? His confidence that, regardless of how tragic or ghastly the experience, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works leads him to make predictions (5:19ff) that are (especially in the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s presence!) self-evidently false, indefensible, and outlandish. Is he faithfully representing the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Some might say Eliphaz is speaking in hyperbole. However, his closing claim – “Yes, this is the way things are, my word of honor!” (Peterson) – seems to me to argue against a hyperbolic interpretation.

Is the Hebrew word for “deliver” (Peterson) or “redeem” (RSV) used elsewhere with a spiritual meaning? The verb means to ransom and occurs in 6:23 (Job) and 33:28 (Elihu). Outside the story/play, the word is used to refer to ‘God’ delivering Israel from Egypt (Deut. 7:8, 13:6), from exile (Jer. 31:11), and in general (Hos. 7:13) as well as delivering specifically individuals (Isa. 29:22).

How can anyone (5:21) “be protected from vicious gossip” (Peterson) or “be hid from the scourge of the tongue” (RSV)? With gossip about the ‘scrapheap’ Job rampant, Eliphaz reveals his conclusion about his close friend.

How can Eliphaz look at the ‘scrapheap’ Job and say -- regardless of the trouble, “the evil can’t touch you” (5:19)? Eliphaz sounds (5:20ff) as if he is singing a hymn (e.g., ‘It Is Well With My Soul’). He sounds as shocking and insensitive as that hymn sounds to me.

The 5:17 text is the first use of ‘almighty’ in reference to ‘God’ in the story/play. Is the ‘God Almighty’ wording distinctive to J, E, P, and/or D?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #29

Eliphaz begins with a ‘God’ who acts indiscriminately (5:10) and then moves to a ‘God’ with special interests in “the down and out” (5:11). It is as if ‘God’ is just and, if he veers, he veers toward mercy. But then Eliphaz quickly settles back into the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ against evildoers.

Is Eliphaz (5:12ff) suggesting the ‘scrapheap’ Job is the victim of a plot, a conspiracy, an intrigue? But then (5:17ff) he introduces the discipline explanation (i.e., “this is for your good”) for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s situation. How deep are the roots of this explanation in Jewish thought? What is the etymology/meaning of the Hebrew word translated (by Peterson and the RSV) as “despise”?

Eliphaz argues (5:10-16) ‘God’ is the defender/protector of the “down and out” (RSV “lowly”), “those sinking in grief” (RSV “who mourn”), the “downtrodden” (RSV “fatherless”), and the “needy” (RSV “needy”) against the wiles of “conniving crooks” (RSV “the crafty”) and the “know-it-alls” (RSV “wise”). Is there a clue yet as to where Eliphaz is placing the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Or is he caught up in his oratory, oblivious to how the ‘scrapheap’ Job might be hearing him? I would definitely cast him as caught up in his oratory. If he places the ‘scrapheap’ Job, perhaps a hint is found in his proposition that “the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth” (5:16). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has suffered financial reversals. However, there is no reason to place him among the poor. So Eliphaz may already be deducing that the ‘scrapheap’ Job must be a purveyor of injustices against the poor. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is then one of those crooks and know-it-alls from whose clutches (v. 15) Eliphaz believes ‘God’ saves the poor. Is it possible Eliphaz has been jealous of the prologue Job’s extremely good fortune?

Peterson (5:11b) has “gives firm footing to those sinking in grief” (RSV “those who mourn are lifted to safety”). Peterson captures the essence of the Hebrew wording. But the word ‘safety’ in this text should not be missed. The word stems from the root for ‘salvation’. Eliphaz is challenging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to save himself by becoming lowly in repentance and mourning his sin. The Hebrew wording here is not similar to the 4:4a wording. Note that, for Eliphaz and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, repenting and mourning mean confessing guilt (and, therefore, absolving ‘God’) to which ‘God’ responds by again drawing near in a protective (rather than attacking) manner. In other words, repenting and mourning saves one from ‘God’.

The word translated ‘hope’ in 5:16a is the same word translated ‘hope’ in 4:6. This word appears often in the story/play, mostly used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job – 6:8 (Job), 7:6 (Job), 8:13 (Bildad), 11:18, 20 (Zophar), 14:7 (Job), 14:19 (Job), 17:15 (Job), 19:10 (Job), 27:8 (Job), 41:9 (‘God’). In trying to follow the line of thought in 5:10-16, I come away with the following -- Eliphaz begins with a reference to a non-discriminating relation between ‘God’ and human experience he finds suggested in weather patterns (5:10). But he abruptly shifts to and lingers with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘the righteous are blessed; the wicked cursed’ premise. Where do these statements (and the preceding set of statements) leave the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- stricken by fate? among the poor? among those deserving punishment?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #28

Eliphaz seems reconciled to the suffering of the collateral victims (e.g., children, employees, neighbors, . . .) in the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s calamities. Thinking this way certainly blunts his attentiveness to the breadth of human suffering.

The word “trouble” appears again (5:6). The Hebrew word occurs several times in the story/play (3:10, 4:8, 5:6, 5:7, 7:3, 11:16, 15:35, 16:2). The word does not appear later in the whirlwind ‘God’ section. Nor is the word used by Elihu or in the epilogue. The word is a favorite for Koheleth in Ecclesiastes, whose use of the word is most often translated ‘toil’ or ‘labor’.

Peterson has “Don’t blame fate when things go wrong -- trouble doesn’t come from nowhere” (5:6). The RSV has “come from the dust” for Peterson’s “fate” and “sprout from the ground” for Peterson’s “nowhere”. Peterson captures the idea. Eliphaz argues trouble does not arise on its own. Trouble is more like a crop that is intentionally sown.

‘Fate’ suggests aimless predetermination or chance. ‘Nowhere’ has cosmological significance. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have such concepts? Or is Eliphaz denying such concepts? For him and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, ‘fate’ and ‘nowhere’ are not realities. All is (divine) cause and (human) effect. Eliphaz traces (5:7) trouble to its origin -- “It’s human!” (Peterson). But “born and bred for trouble” (Peterson) and “born to trouble” (RSV) push the origin of trouble beyond/before individual choice.

I agree we often (but not always) bring trouble on others and ourselves. However, I would argue autonomous human freedom/will is not essential or weight bearing within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- which instead reduces human experiences finally to the intentional or permissive will of ‘God’. Eliphaz seems to be saying, not that humans exercise freedom in damaging ways, but that humans are by nature the source of their trouble. Is Eliphaz attributing trouble and humans being “born and bred for trouble” to ‘God’? Where in Jewish scripture is this view of human nature found? Did ‘the Fall’ originate in Jewish thought or is ‘the Fall’ a Christian idea conceived to put ‘God’ at least one step removed from responsibility for the trouble human beings experience? It is not surprising debate became so intense among the Christian guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re whether ‘the Fall’ was truly/essentially an exercise of human freedom. It should be noted that interpreting Genesis 3 as a literal space/time ‘Fall’ from spiritual innocence/completeness implies and necessitates a pre-modern/pre-scientific cosmology.

Does the view expressed in the Psalms (e.g., 51:5) that human beings are born in sin – or, so to speak, with the cards stacked against them – indicate the idea of some sort of ‘Fall’ was in circulation? In Christian scripture, James (1:14-15) places all temptation and sin at the feet of humans. With the cards stacked against human beings, very few (if any) would enjoy a trouble-free life. Is this line of thought not crosswise with the (D)euteronomic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

By 5:8ff in the story/play, Eliphaz is completely out of touch with the ‘scrapheap’ Job, whose responses play off Eliphaz’s disconnection by taking so many of his words/metaphors in directions opposite to Eliphaz’s intentions. Eliphaz will not allow the ‘scrapheap’ Job to question ‘God’.

Peterson (5:8-9) has “If I were in your shoes” (RSV “As for me”). Literally, the Hebrew text reads, “But, I, I would seek to God”, with the ‘I’ emphasized. ‘But’ is a very strong transition, indicating “You might do this, but I would do something entirely different, perhaps opposite”. Can Eliphaz possibly imagine/grasp being discarded on a ‘scrapheap’? He mentions no comparable experience/s.

Peterson (5:8-9) has “I’d go straight to God” (RSV “I would seek God”). He seems to be playing off of the 5:1 wording. Peterson has “I’d throw myself on the mercy of God” (RSV “to God I would commit my cause”). The Hebrew wording supports ‘cause’ rather than ‘mercy’. Mercy has not been previously introduced in the story/play. If Eliphaz has mercy in mind, he develops the idea in appeals to nature (5:10), to a safety net for the lowly (5:11, 15-16), and to the demise of the crafty (5:12-14). What place does mercy have in the ‘religious’ T/O theological paradigm? Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, mercy begins with a Genesis 1-2 type reflection on creation (not the more nuanced Ecclesiastes type reflections on creation, to which I assign greater weight). ‘God’ is thought to make life operate in an orderly cause and effect manner. Mercy might also refer to the leeway ‘God’ permits to those living within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. For instance, ‘God’ may delay discipline or judgment (e.g., texts that suggest ‘God’ waited centuries before punishing Israel and then Judah).

Eliphaz (5:8-9) calls the acts of ‘God’ “great” (Peterson and RSV) and “unexpected” (RSV “unsearchable”). He claims, “There is no end to his surprises” (RSV “marvelous things without number”). Is Eliphaz saying such acts are illogical or inconsistent within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? that ‘God’ errs toward mercy? If so, this point underscores his argument that the ‘scrapheap’ Job deserves his plight and should admit his corruption. Eliphaz will not consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s contention that ‘God’ can also be harsher than deserved, lashing out and destroying for no reason.

The reference to “no end” (RSV “without number”) conveys the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s confidence that such acts by ‘God’ far outnumber the events or experiences that are anomalous to the paradigm. Given a modern/scientific view of reality, I do not attribute showers (5:10) to the direct/intentional will of ‘God’. Nor do I agree the stories from which divine justice and divine mercy might be inferred far outnumber the stories from which divine injustice and divine cruelty might be inferred. The representatives/guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm can be counted on to tally the former stories (e.g., experiences that are classified as ‘a God story’). Is there evidence they tally the latter stories? I have not found such evidence. What counts as a story of justice and mercy? of injustice and cruelty? A spectrum would help clarify the variations within these two classifications of stories.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #27

How is death viewed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Jewish theology? within the story of Job? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments about death (3:13ff) present the first description of death in the story/play. Such descriptions need to be tracked through the story/play. How do these descriptions vary?

Note (Peterson’s wording) “resting in peace”, “asleep”, “feeling no pain”, “in the company of kings and statesmen” . . . – the ‘scrapheap’ Job anticipates none of these experiences associated with the death of the blessed within the variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm he had shared with his close friends.

Eliphaz reminds the ‘scrapheap’ Job he has “spoken words that clarify, encouraged those who were about to quit” (4:3). What about this wording? Is the purpose of “instructing” (RSV) to clarify? Does Peterson’s translation stay within the metaphor of ‘weak hands’? Is Eliphaz associating the ‘scrapheap’ Job with these (4:3-4) conditions literally? figuratively? both?

Eliphaz says ‘God’ is angry (4:9) in response to evil. The ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no evidence in his misery of such anger toward any evil for which he is accountable. Instead, he sees ‘God’ as unjustifiably and intentionally targeting him with disturbing delight.

The 4:17-18 statements in the story/play gets to the crux – i.e., the ‘scrapheap’ Job claims to have been morally consistent whereas ‘God’, he argues, has not. What does it mean, within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to say ‘God’ is righteous if suffering such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s suffering without justification is attributed to the intention or permission of ‘God’? Does Eliphaz accurately represent the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in suggesting that ‘God’ does not trust any being (4:18)? Saying “God is righteous” is anthropomorphic. And Eliphaz’s reference to ‘God’ having servants (attendants?) is clearly sociomorphic.

From 5:1 forward in the story/play, Eliphaz increasingly loses touch with or focus on the “scrapheap’ Job. He leaves the impression (5:1-2) that no one who might hear a call for help from the ‘scrapheap’ Job will respond (similar to reports of individuals being shot or beaten to whom no bystander responds). Who does Eliphaz include with ‘anyone’? Is the reference limited to the “holy angels” (Peterson) or “holy ones” (RSV)? Would he include ‘religious’ functionaries/professionals? And ‘the righteous’ too? Why will no one respond? fear of punishment by association? fear of being collateral victims? After all, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s house certainly appears to be cursed (5:3).

I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job concludes Eliphaz has him in mind (5:2) with the references to “hot temper” (RSV -- “vexation”) or “jealous anger” (RSV -- “jealousy’) or “fool” (Peterson and RSV). Is there a difference between ‘fool’ and ‘simpleton’? In the context of Wisdom Literature, calling the ‘scrapheap’ Job a fool is a very serious charge. The Hebrew word here for ‘fool’ is not the word common in the Proverbs references to a fool. A ‘simpleton’ is someone easily deceived. Perhaps Eliphaz is trying to be gentle by not using the harsher word for ‘fool’. But he is still slapping the ‘scrapheap’ Job with his own verdict concerning his problems. The harsher word for ‘fool’ never occurs in the story/play. Is that because the author of the dialogues inserted between the prologue and the epilogue realizes the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not a fool in the harsher sense, but in fact speaks courageously what is true?

I find the RSV translation -- “but suddenly I cursed his dwelling” (5:3b) confusing. Peterson has “suddenly their houses are cursed”. The Hebrew word is first person. The word (which first occurs in 3:8) is not a common verb for ‘curse’. Peterson’s translation resolves the confusion.

Is Eliphaz arguing against “putting down roots” (Peterson) or “taking root” (RSV) when blessed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm warn against or discourage actually “putting down roots” in this life? Are the roots Eliphaz has in mind more theological than social? Is he implying that “putting down roots” leads to one’s house eventually being cursed? Or does “suddenly” indicate he is saying one’s house can be cursed for no reason?

Eliphaz sounds very aristocratic (5:4-5), full of disdain and disrespect for the hungry and the thirsty. The perspective found in Proverbs understands poverty to be a punishment, but also encourages the seeker of wisdom to be generous. The notion that poverty results from disobedience stigmatizes the poor, the diseased, and those who have suffered great loss. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm permit (even promote) the dispositions and corresponding behavior Eliphaz endorses? Yes.

“Their children out in the cold, abused and exploited, with no one to stick up for them” (5:4) -- painfully vivid.

At this point, Eliphaz puts the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology and liturgy in front of (and, thereby, eclipses) the harsh realities being experienced by the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Eliphaz looks/sounds ridiculous to me. How does he look/sound to those within the ‘religious’ sphere?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #26

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #26

[The primary references to the text for the Job story/play come from Eugene Peterson’s translation -- The Message of Job. I have copied the section of the story/play to which the postings that follow the text relate – i.e., the concluding statements in the first responses from the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s close friend Eliphaz (5:1-27). Postings #26-#30 follow.]

[Eliphaz continued]

5.1Call for help, Job, if you think anyone will answer! To which of the holy angels will you turn? 2The hot temper of a fool eventually kills him, the jealous anger of a simpleton does her in. 3I’ve seen it myself – seen fools putting down roots, and the, suddenly, their houses are cursed, 4their children out in the cold, abused and exploited, with no one to stick up for them. 5Hungry people off the street plunder their harvests, cleaning them out completely, taking thorns and all, insatiable for everything they have. 6Don’t blame fate when things go wrong – trouble doesn’t come from nowhere. 7It’s human! Mortals are born and bred for trouble, as certainly as sparks fly upward.

8If I were in your shoes, I’d go straight to God, I’d throw myself on the mercy of God. 9After all, he’s famous for great and unexpected acts; there’s no end to his surprises. 10He gives rain, for instance, across the wide earth, sends water to irrigate the fields. 11He raises up the down and out, gives firm footing to those sinking in grief. 12He aborts the schemes of conniving crooks, so that none of their plots come to term. 13He catches the know-it-alls in their conspiracies – all that intricate intrigue swept out with the trash! 14Suddenly they’re disoriented, plunged into darkness; they can’t see to put one foot in front of the other. 15But the downtrodden are saved by God, saved from the murderous plots, saved from the iron fist. 16And so the poor continue to hope while injustice is bound and gagged.

17So, what a blessing when God steps in and corrects you! Mind you, don’t despise the discipline of Almighty God! 18True, he wounds, but he also dresses the wound; the same hand that hurts you, heals you. 19From one disaster after another he delivers you; no matter what the calamity, the evil can’t touch you. 20In famine, he’ll keep you from starving, in war, from being gutted by the sword. 21You’ll be protected from vicious gossip and live fearless through any catastrophe. 22You’ll shrug off disaster and famine, and stroll fearlessly among wild animals. 23You’ll be on good terms with rocks and mountains; wild animals will become your good friends. 24You’ll know that your place on earth is safe; you’ll look over your goods and find nothing amiss. 25You’ll see your children grow up, your family lovely and lissome as orchard grass. 26You’ll arrive at your grave ripe with many good years, like sheaves of golden grain at harvest.

27Yes, this is the way things are – my word of honor! Take it to heart and you won’t go wrong.

Fragment #15 - Reflections from Journal Entries

[June 2005 reflections after my first trip to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories]

I want to share some of the comments still echoing in my mind from encounters during the April time Dr. McRay and I spent in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (the comments follow the order of our meetings/activities) --

The office manager for a medical practice in the Israeli settlement Gush Katif in Gaza who, along with her husband, was in 1983 among the original civilian settlers -- “We (Israelis residing in the Gush Katif settlement in Gaza) are here legally.”

The senior physician for the above-mentioned medical practice (who resides in Gush Katif and also has a faculty appointment with Ben Gurion University’s Family Medicine Department in Be’er Sheva) -- “We must hit them (the Palestinians) with everything we have. If we had done so from the beginning, we would not have the problem we have today. . . . What more do they (the Palestinians) want from us?”

The same physician, commenting on Gaza before the Gush Katif settlement was founded -- “There was nothing here.”

A mid-40s antiquities dealer in Old Jerusalem (a ‘Jerusalemite’, as Palestinians who remained in Jerusalem with no citizen rights after the 1967 War are classified) -- “You do not respond to one people’s tragedy (i.e., Jews slaughtered during the Nazi Holocaust) by imposing a tragedy on another people (i.e., hundreds of thousands of Palestinians driven from their homes/villages in the creation and expansion of the state of Israel).”

A mid-30s Israeli woman who emigrated from Russia -- “There will be no political solution. Israelis and Palestinians are too mixed in their locations. . . . ‘Refugee Camp’ is an inaccurate image. It is self-imposed. They could take the initiative. . . . If one suicide bomber is stopped, ‘the wall’ is worth it.”

A late-50s Internal Medicine faculty member at Hadassah School of Medicine in Jerusalem -- “25% of Israelis are religious/orthodox, 25% are observing, 50% are secular. The percentages shift toward the observing and the secular categories among medical students at Hadassah. . . . Israeli Arabs who meet the entrance criteria can go to Hadassah’s medical school with no problems. . . . If there had been no Holocaust, there would have been no State of Israel.”

A ‘Messianic Jew’ -- “The Mount of Olives is infested with Arabs.”

A late-30s Palestinian woman who guided us through/around the walled-off Palestinian city of Qalqiliya, as she pointed to a map that highlighted the Israeli government’s confiscation of Palestinian land in the West Bank – “Whose finger is sticking into whose pie?”

The same woman, challenging Israeli checkpoint soldiers who had referred to the confiscated land around the checkpoint as ‘Israel’ – “That is not Israel! That is Palestine! That land over there is my father’s land.”

The same woman -- “The next elections – municipal elections – will go 80% Hamas. 70% of Qalqiliya residents are refugees, three times separated from their homes. When there is no hope, you turn to the right.”

A farmer/teacher in Qalqiliya -- “Sixty years are enough. . . . I am 59 years old. I retire next year. . . . They (Israel) steal our farms, our land, our lives. . . . I may blow myself up.”

A school principal in Ramallah – “Who has a life here?”

An American Consulate official -- “We took Secretary of State Rice on the ground to Ramallah, but not through the Qalandiya checkpoint. They (Israeli authorities) did remove some of the barriers to make it easier for her. But I made sure she understood the situation.”

A young boy in a remote West Bank village – “I want to be a doctor.”

An early-30s Palestinian man living on the Mount of Olives -- “I work every day with the priests at a Franciscan printing press in Old Jerusalem. I see who they really are. It is all about money. The people see them in their vestments, at Mass, and are impressed. I do not like the priests. I do not go to church often.”

An early-60s Palestinian man in Bethlehem who founded a work shelter for mentally disabled children and adults -- “Palestinians are between the hammer and the rock. . . . Many Palestinians in refugee camps still – after sixty years -- have the keys to their confiscated homes!”

A late-40s Palestinian man who chairs the planning committee in the Shu’fat Refugee Camp near Jerusalem – “I have lived here all my life. . . . When my parents were relocated here in 1948 after having been driven from their village just a few kilometers to the west of Jerusalem, they were given a seven-meter by fifteen-meter plot for their family of four. Now the family has grown beyond fifty members, all living on that same plot of land. Our only option is up.”

I feel more keenly/painfully than ever an identification with Koheleth (in the Ecclesiastes essay) as he wrestled with being aware of the human misery just beyond the edges of his affluence. My American citizenship makes me complicit with the Israeli government’s oppression of the Palestinian people. . . . Refugee camps filled with hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinian families – many homeless since 1948 – dot the map. . . . How can I want/expect to be delivered from any personal loss/discomfort – however severe – when I know the depth/breadth of human pain/misery occurring ‘under the sun’ among the powerless, the marginalized, the desperate, the forgotten? . . . Where, across a lifestyle spectrum with one end being ‘utter misery’ and the other end being ‘utter affluence’, is the lifestyle that does not necessitate colonizing, exploiting, oppressing, impoverishing? where none would have reason to say, “I would not live my life over”? The standard of living experienced or sought in the United States is far toward the ‘utter affluence’ end of the spectrum. A serious move toward the point of a just lifestyle on the spectrum will be hard and complicated. Is it possible? . . . I must resist the enticements/sanctions – social, professional, religious – to turn away from seeing, to be distracted, to try to forget.

Koheleth seems tormented, paralyzed, uncertain, hesitant, frustrated, disillusioned. I do not think the author had found a way to stay focused on ‘life under the sun’ when he wrote Ecclesiastes. Perhaps my journal entries illustrate a sequel to Ecclesiastes, an interpretation of attempting to remain ‘with the world face to face’.

Fragment #14 - Reflections from Journal Entries

[1994]
Societal ‘spheres’ are by definition idolatrous and contaminated settings (at least with something analogous to second-hand smoke inhalation). Why enter? How enter? How exit?

Fragment #13 - Reflections from Journal Entries

[1994]

It is difficult to be very close friends with persons who only bring weaknesses to the relationship.

Fragment #12 - Reflections from Journal Entries

[May 2005 after my first trip to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories]

The return trip last month to Israel and the Occupied Territories took Dr. McRay and me nearer the realities being experienced by the Palestinians. We spent time in Bethlehem, in Gaza, in Ramallah, in Qalqiliya, in a remote West Bank village with a mobile clinic, and in a refugee camp north of Jerusalem. These experiences in combination with a deeper reading into Zionism and the past century’s history re the establishment of the State of Israel have left us with a mixture of conflicting impressions/emotions. Is it possible that the empathy I feel deeply for the victims of the Holocaust is the empathy I now feel for the Palestinians? Dr. McRay and I are looking into ways to sponsor one of the many remote maternity clinics in the West Bank being cut off from hospital care by the Israeli authorities’ ‘security wall/fence’.

Fragment #11 - Reflections from Journal Entries

[April 2005] I read Nouwen’s Life of the Beloved (1993) again a few days ago. The reading awakened the sobering question I faced as I put the book aside after reading it soon after publication – i.e., why did Nouwen fail in his attempt to “write something about the spiritual life” for his friend – secular and Jewish – Fred Bratman? As Bratman explained to Nouwen after reading the manuscript for Life of the Beloved --

Although it is clear that you try to write for me and my friends from your own center and although you express to us what is most precious to you, you do not realize how far we are from where you are. You speak from a context and tradition that is alien to us, and your words are based on many presuppositions that we don’t share with you. You are not aware of how truly secular we are.

Nouwen did not fail for lack of time with Bratman. A decade of interactions had made them deeply aware of each other. Their friendship had sensitized Nouwen to “the plea that arose on all sides – wherever I was open to hear it”.

Bratman: “Speak to us about the deepest yearning of our hearts, about our many wishes, about hope . . . about hope . . . about trust . . . about love. Speak to us about a vision larger than our changing perspectives and about a voice deeper than the clamorings of our mass media. Yes, speak to us about something or someone greater than ourselves. Speak to us about . . . God.”

Nouwen: “Who am I to speak about such things? . . . I don’t have the experience, the knowledge, or the language you are asking for. You and your friends live in a world so different from my own.”

I remember wondering: “Why could Nouwen not grasp the secular mentality? . . . Why had he not realized how wide the gap is between the ‘religious’ and the ‘secular’? . . . Will he try again? . . . If so, what will he do differently?”

Nouwen’s failure shook me. By 1992 I had passed the point of no return in the resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’. I thought about the medical students, residents, teaching physicians, practicing physicians I was attempting to prompt re an approach to spirituality and ethics not dependent on ‘religious’ presuppositions when I read Bratman’s appeal that resulted in Life of the Beloved –

You can do it. . . . You have to do it. . . . If you don’t, who will? . . . Visit me more often; talk to my friends; look attentively at what you see, and listen carefully to what you hear. You will discover a cry welling up from the depths of the human heart that has remained unheard because there was no one to listen.

I resolved in 1993 after finishing Life of the Beloved not to presume I had anything to say in being ‘with the world face to face’. I resolved to suppress speaking out of insecurity. I resolved instead to listen . . . to observe . . . to feel . . . to care.

It is my understanding that Nouwen lived and thought in the ‘religious’ sphere when he wrote Life of the Beloved. He visited Bratman’s ‘secular’ world. By contrast, the ‘religious’ sphere had ceased to be ‘home’ for me by the time I read Nouwen’s attempt to speak meaningfully to individuals who are not ‘religious’. Educational and existential experiences over the previous two decades had carried me far from Nouwen’s ‘religious’ presuppositions and, in doing so, had triggered a radical (i.e., into the deepest roots) rethinking of spirituality and ethics in my personal journey. I had more in common with Bratman than with Nouwen. I was aware of one core aspect of the task Nouwen seems not to have realized – i.e., that the task has to do with far more than transposing ‘religious’ ideas into ‘non-religious’ wording.

Fragment #10 - Reflections from Journal Entries

Spirituality and ethics had, by the mid-1980s, become for me distinguishable from and broader than ‘religion’. I had met variations on Camus’ Dr. Rieux (The Plague) among the physicians, nurses, social workers, and volunteers who -- though diverse in their thought worlds and life views -- embodied similar values in their care for easily forgotten or overlooked patients. It had become apparent to me that (1) if these professionals were more than highly-skilled technicians and if their patients were more than biological systems, illnesses, or diseases, then (2) a vocabulary and a grammar to consider this ‘more’ are necessary. Such vocabulary and grammar, which must be accessible to all who care about the ‘more’, became for me the stuff of spirituality and ethics.

Image #17

Holland . . . 2003 . . . magnificent tulip farm . . . elegance . . .

Image #16

Freiburg, Germany . . . 2006 . . . quiet garden just a few steps from bustling city streets . . . pause . . .

Image #15

Montgomery, Alabama . . . civil rights marker . . . remembering individuals who were killed in the struggle . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #25

What place does Eliphaz’s appeal to dreams (4:12ff) have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Wisdom literature? in Jewish theological methods? in Christian theological methods? His appeal to dreams is juxtaposed with his previous appeal to observation. Dreams and supernatural communications carry little weight in Wisdom literature. The most supernatural appearance of ‘God’ to Job in the story/play – i.e., the whirlwind -- is an anomaly in Jewish Wisdom literature. The dreams of Joseph and Daniel are rare in Jewish literature and should be considered atypical. Eliphaz seems to be making a rather desperate appeal. He reminds me of the desperate student I watched at a piano recital who, frustrated and embarrassed by her inability to complete her assigned piece, switched frantically to a few measures of a ‘boogie’ before fleeing tearfully from the piano. Eliphaz no longer speaks/acts as a ‘wise’ man. How should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be cast when reacting to Eliphaz’s appeal to a dream – e.g., a raised eyebrow? a mystified stare?

Eliphaz uses the same word for ‘dread’ (4:14) that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has just used (3:24). The word – which appears several more times in the story/play (13:11, 15:21, 21:9, 22:10, 25:2, 31:23, 39:16, 39:22) -- often refers to the “dread of the Lord” or “fear of the Lord”. Just as often, it refers to abject terror.

The terms ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’ (4:17) are very common terms. Peterson’s “more” captures the Hebrew comparative. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in fact build around concepts of ‘God’ as ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’? If so, then what do the breadth and depth of innocent/tragic human suffering imply about the definitions of ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’ in reference to ‘God’? If the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm does not in fact build around such concepts, then the ‘God’ of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is above accountability and, therefore, represents ‘might makes right’.

If ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) is righteous within relationships, then this ‘God’ certainly operates by different standards than the standards the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects humans to follow in their treatment of others. Does the purity attributed to ‘God’ come from being wholly other (i.e., pure because ‘God’ is different, untouched by the world) or is the purity attributed to ‘God’ moral as well? Job’s torturous experiences and the wider/deeper realities of human suffering would seem to say this ‘God’ is neither righteous nor pure by the standards to which the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects humans to follow in their treatment of others.

To say that standards for defining righteousness and purity are not applicable to ‘God’ is to take an easy (but, as the ‘scrapheap’ Job realizes, a horrific) way out. Representatives/guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm grant each other this easy way out. A ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics, spirituality, and theology neither seeks nor accepts an easy way out, but instead turns away from the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The next thoughts from Eliphaz about ‘God’ (4:18-19) -- which suggest remoteness and a lack of care -- further distance humans from ‘God’. What link exists between these thoughts and the preceding references to the superior righteousness and purity of ‘God’? What do these thoughts imply about ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Is the ‘God’ acknowledged within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm an inconsistent and paranoid despot (eerily similar to King Saul in need of a youthful David with a lyre)?

The Hebrew word for ‘servant’ (4:18) is the same word used to identify Job in the prologue.

Peterson switches (4:20-21) from third-person pronouns to first-person pronouns. However, the third-person is used through 4:21 in the Hebrew text. Who is speaking in the ‘blur’? in a ‘muffled voice’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #24

Eliphaz first turns thinking or remembering (implicitly in 4:7, explicitly in 4:8) toward observing human experience. Does/can the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerate doing so if the observing is indiscriminate rather than selective? disturbing rather than supportive? No. Instead, observing human experience is done through the filter/lens of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, resulting in explanations that do not threaten the paradigm. Eliphaz then shifts to the insulation of a dream (4:12ff). When in doubt, switch to special revelation claims.

Eliphaz does not start with “just believe”. However, he and the ‘scrapheap’ Job differ radically re what/how to remember. He tries to redirect the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s focus from dwelling on what he (Eliphaz) considers exceptions that do not fit the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to dwelling on what he (Eliphaz) considers the reassuring norms of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job is now a ‘story’ – most likely ‘the story’, a headline -- added to the caravan travelers’ reports. I see the caravan travelers as representing circumspection, more than simply telling heart-warming stories. The caravan travelers have time to think. And they have to accommodate different cultures. How does an Eliphaz hear the caravan travelers’ stories? An answer can be found in how he (Bildad and Zophar as well) turns a deaf ear to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The ‘scrapheap’ Job remembers and references the caravan travelers’ stories, likely regarding them as even more credible now than before tragedies had struck him.

Radical (i.e., to the root) thinking and remembering are difficult when fatigued, but do not thereby lack integrity.

In the first telling of an experience, a person begins to engage in reconstructing the past experience.

Peterson (4:7) has “truly innocent” (the RSV has “innocent”) and “genuinely upright” (the RSV has “upright”) re the righteous/blessed. The Hebrew word for ‘innocent’ can mean clean, free from guilt, free from obligation, exempt. It occurs elsewhere in Job (9:23, 17:8, 22:19, 22:30, 27:17). The word can describe innocent blood (Deut. 19:10, 27:25) or one exempt from military service (Num. 32:22). The word for ‘upright’ is the same word as in the prologue.

‘Truly’ and ‘genuinely’ seem to capture the way the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm makes its confirmation inevitable – i.e., shifting blame to the pretenders. To be ‘truly innocent’ and ‘genuinely upright’ would be to accept and defend the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Peterson reinforces this point with “ever ended up on the scrapheap” (RSV’s ‘perished’) and “ever lose out in the end” (RSV’s ‘cut off’). The Hebrew word for ‘perish’ appears frequently in the story/play (3:3, 4:9, 4:11, 4:20, 6:18, 8:13, 11:20, 18:17, 20:7, 29:13, 30:2, 31:19 are all in the active voice; 12:23, intensive; 14:19, causative). The word is a general word for ‘die’. But ‘cut off’ (cf. 15:28, 22:20 in the active; 6:10, 15:18, 27:11 in the intensive; 20:12 in the causative) has more the meaning of ‘being hidden’. By using these two words together, to perish takes on the idea of vanishing (3:3, 18:7, 30:2).

Peterson’s “scrapheap” gets at the idea of no longer being visible or remembered. What is placed there has no value, is forgotten, and eventually becomes as if never having existed. The ‘scrapheap’ metaphor could be associated with a garbage dump or a landfill, with the pile of scrap material at a construction sight, with discarded food scraps.

Does Eliphaz see Job as tossed aside on ‘the scrapheap’? Would Job use such imagery? Does Job use ‘perished’, ‘cut off’, ‘reap’, ‘consumed’, . . . (4:7-11) to describe his condition? He uses ‘perished’ in cursing the day he was born (3:3), but does not apply the word more directly to himself. The three close friends use ‘perish’ in reference to the fate of those who are evil. The verb ‘consumed’ (7:6, 7:9, 11:20, 17:5, 19:27, 33:21 in the active and 9:22, 21:13, 31:16, 36:11 in the intensive) is never specifically applied by the ‘scrapheap’ Job to himself. Eliphaz places the ‘scrapheap’ Job with the wicked, perhaps among the unknowingly wicked. The ‘scrapheap’ Job understands Eliphaz to be placing him among the wicked. On the other hand, the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees himself among the innocent and, thus, as undeserving of such punishment. He sees himself among the ‘consumed’, but not among the ‘wicked’. He is heading to his wife’s conclusion in the prologue -- “If ‘God’ is going to throw me on the scrapheap for no reason, I may as well die.”

Is Eliphaz thinking of the ‘scrapheap’ Job when he introduces the lion metaphor (4:10-11)? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job identify with this metaphor? Has he now felt the ‘breath of God’? ‘the blast of his anger’? Are his teeth now broken? Does he now lack the ability to capture prey? Are his cubs now scattered? Job’s victorious roar (descriptive of his pre-‘scrapheap’ community standing) has been silenced. He is now reduced to the plight of a lion that can no longer hunt either for itself or for its cubs, that will soon die alone in the field and return to dust. Or Eliphaz could also be interpreted here as demonstrating how, without full awareness or without intention, the oratory (e.g., hymns, prayers, sermons) of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm victimizes individual sufferers such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

Is Eliphaz saying ‘God’ weakens the lion? Does Wisdom literature (e.g., Proverbs) draw from such observations of nature? Where (if at all) does a Lion King’s ‘circle of life’ or a Charlotte’s Web’s ‘Father Time’ fit the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘breath of God’ in Genesis is life giving. (The Hebrew word in Job 4:9b is in Genesis 1; the word in Job 4:9a is not.) Is ‘the breath of God’ viewed as destructive elsewhere in Jewish or Christian scripture?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #23

Are there any indications in the story/play that Job has previously faced life-changing experiences with tragedy (e.g., a relative or close friend or individual for whom he cared whose illnesses, injuries, social plight, and/or aging had reduced him/her to a ‘toothless lion’ -- to use a metaphor introduced by Eliphaz)? I have not yet found such indications.

Eliphaz seems to endorse (4:6) the descriptions of Job celebrated in the prologue. The Hebrew text has a noun (‘your fear’) rather than the verb form used in the prologue. The Hebrew word translated ‘integrity’ is the same root used in the prologue. Are ‘fear of God’ and ‘integrity’ foundational to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm for considering a person ‘great’? Or do material signs of being blessed (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) lead to the deduction that the individual must, therefore, ‘fear God’ and have ‘integrity’?

When heard/interpreted within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, what is Eliphaz saying (4:6) re ‘confidence’ and/or ‘hope’? Confidence and hope may be sequential rather than a parallelism. I hear Eliphaz to be counseling/urging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to “admit your sin and seek again to do right in God’s eyes. . . . There is no other way out of this mess. . . . God is just. . . . You are not.”

Is Eliphaz quoting the pre-tragedy Job’s words to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? It is hardly the place or time for taunting. The three close friends are being ‘pastoral’ in the worst sense. What appears thoughtful to them, Job experiences as thoughtless. Their attempted loyalty backs the ‘scrapheap’ Job against the wall, puts him on the defensive.

For dramatic effect, a pause should occur at the end of Eliphaz’s opening remarks. And then there is the question of how to present the ‘scrapheap’ Job on stage during Eliphaz’s remarks. Is he ignoring Eliphaz? Does he look hurt? surprised? angry?

Eliphaz is arguing for an “If righteous, then blessed” equation/theology in the presence of an utterly devastated friend whom he and the public have considered a unique model of righteousness. Would any variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm restrain Eliphaz?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job may be understood to represent individuals who live their personal lives as if safely in the paradigm’s center but who see/consider the cruel/torturous boundary/marginalizing circumstances others face. The severely abused kids cared for at the K-Bar-B Youth Ranch represent (for me) individuals whose lives begin with boundary/marginalizing experiences. My guidance for our daughters as they have left home – i.e., always test ideas by their implications re the K-Bar-B kids.

A ‘-3 to +3’ spectrum on ‘friendship’ is needed, with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s definition of friendship (6:14) being ‘+3’ on the spectrum.

Eliphaz admonishes the ‘scrapheap’ Job to ‘think’ (4:7). The Hebrew word can also be translated ‘remember’. The word also occurs in 7:7 (Job), 10:9 (Job), 11:16 (Bildad), 14:13 (Job), 21:6 (Job), 36:24 (Elihu), 40:23 (‘God’).

What place does ‘thinking’/‘remembering’ have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm permit or encourage one seriously/radically to consider experiences/data that call into question the paradigm? Or must one’s memory be guided by and exercised in ways consistent with and affirming of the paradigm?

Why does Eliphaz presume the ‘scrapheap’ Job has not been ‘thinking’?

How is ‘thinking’ similar/different in or out of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? A pivotal point in my move away from the ‘religious’ sphere to a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality, ethics, theology occurred with my realization that within the ‘religious’ sphere I could without reprisal seriously/radically think – even raise core questions – only as long as such inquiry ultimately and in a timely manner confirmed rather than questioned/threatened the ‘religious’ sphere (e.g., sermons, lectures, class discussions, prayers, hymns, articles, books, . . .). In other words, thinking and remembering within the ‘religious’ sphere are exercises in selective memory. As a victim/subject, the ‘scrapheap’ Job can no longer engage in selective memory without violating his integrity, misrepresenting his experience. He cannot ignore or walk away from the ‘scrapheap’.
For a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics, spirituality, and theology -- observation must be careful, intense, unrestrained, unrestricted. Instead, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is looking for support/confirmation.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #22

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

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

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

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

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

Is ‘patience’ on the short list of virtues in Jewish thought? Does Eliphaz expect the ‘scrapheap’ Job to respond as described in the prologue (i.e., before the three close friends enter the story/play)? Note they are not present when Job responds in the prologue. How might they have learned of his prologue responses? Eliphaz leaves the impression that Job’s suffering is rather common. He argues that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has neither right nor reason to be impatient. The ‘scrapheap’ Job responds by restating and insisting on his right and his reason to be impatient.

Re ‘touch’ (4:5), the Hebrew word can be translated to touch, to reach, to strike. This verb is used in the story/play as follows (Peterson translation): ‘touch’ (1:11 – the Accuser), ‘struck’ (1:19 – a servant), ‘touch’ (2:5 – the Accuser), ‘touch’ (5:19 – Eliphaz), ‘touch’ (6:7 – Job), ‘touched’ (19:21 – Job), ‘reach’ (20:6 – Zophar). Note that most references associate ‘touch’ with ‘harm’. ‘Touch/ed’ is one more term among the terms found in the prologue to the story/play that are given ironic meanings in the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.

Perhaps ‘it’ (4:5) points to the ‘who is doing this to Job?’ dispute in the prologue references to ‘touch’. Is it ‘God’? or the Accuser? Eliphaz introduces the category/concept of evil in his reference to ‘touch’ (5:19), just after describing ‘God’ as wounding individuals. The ‘scrapheap’ Job seems to have drawn his conclusion – “the hand of God has touched me” (19:21). Does Eliphaz’s reference to evil imply the idea of a malevolent metaphysical reality separate and independent from ‘God’? If so, such would be distinct from the Accuser in the prologue in that there the Accuser is one of the messengers and is presented as at least to some degree subservient to ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #21

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

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

Whatever the three close friends have been thinking while sitting in silence with the ‘scrapheap’ Job for seven days and nights, their ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology has not prepared them for Job’s first words from the ‘scrapheap’. Eliphaz is caught off guard. How should he respond to a teacher/elder who is taking positions so radically different from his previous, familiar, published views? (Note the parallel with the reactions Eberhard Bethge recalled for me in one of our conversations re the reactions of the pre-1939 friends/students of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Dietrich’s post-1939 and, especially, to his prison correspondence ideas re a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality, ethics, theology.)

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

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

How would Eliphaz be understood by those reading/watching the story/play who have no idea what is to follow as the story/play unfolds? Note that Eliphaz sees the ‘scrapheap’ Job as not yet collapsed, fallen. He sees him reeling, but not yet knocked out.

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