The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #203

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 tragic 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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #202

[July 2006 journal entry]

The terms ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’ (4:17) are very common terms. Peterson’s use of ‘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 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 a brutal ‘might makes right’ ethic.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #201

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz uses the same word for ‘dread’ (4:14) that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has just used in his first statements from the ‘scrapheap’ (3:24). The word for ‘dread’ – 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 ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #200

[July 2006 journal entry]

What place does Eliphaz’s appeal to dreams (4:12ff) have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Wisdom Literature? in Jewish theological method? in Christian theological method? His appeal to dreams is juxtaposed with his previous appeal to observation of nature. Appeals to dreams and supernatural communications carry little weight in Wisdom Literature. The most dramatic appearance of ‘God’ to Job – i.e., in the whirlwind -- is an anomaly in Jewish Wisdom Literature. The dreams of Joseph and Daniel are rare in Jewish scripture 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 directed to act when responding to Eliphaz’s appeal to a dream – e.g., a raised eyebrow? a mystified stare?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #199

[July 2006 journal entry]

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

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #198

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 in/with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #197

[July 2006 journal entry]

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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #196

[July 2006 journal entry]

Does Eliphaz see Job as tossed aside on the ‘scrapheap’? Would Job use such imagery about himself? 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. His 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 earlier conclusion -- “If ‘God’ is going to throw me on the scrapheap for no reason, I may as well die.”

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #195

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation choice of ‘scrapheap’ gets at the idea of tragic sufferers no longer being visible or remembered. What is placed on the ‘scrapheap’ 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 site, or with discarded food scraps.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #194

[July 2006 journal entry]

‘Truly’ and ‘genuinely’ seem to capture the way the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm makes its confirmation inevitable – i.e., by 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).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #193

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (4:7) has “truly innocent” (the RSV has “innocent”) and “genuinely upright” (the RSV has “upright”). The Hebrew word for ‘innocent’ can mean clean, free from guilt, free from obligation, exempt. It occurs elsewhere in the story/play (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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #192

[July 2006 journal entry]

In the first telling of an experience, a person begins to engage in reconstructing the past experience (e.g., how a woman remembers childbirth after one hour, one day, one week, one month, one year, . . .). My experience with my first wife’s illness so deeply marked me that forgetting or reconstructing the experience away was not an option after her death (d. 1987). Instead, her experience remains for me a symbol of so many other tragic/humiliated sufferers then and now.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #191

[July2006 journal entry]

Thinking and remembering are difficult when fatigued, but do not thereby lack integrity.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #190

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #189

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 exceptions that do not fit the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to dwelling on the reassuring norms of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #188

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 of what is observed 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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #187

[July 2006 journal entry]

For a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics and spirituality -- observation must be careful, intense, unrestrained, unrestricted. Instead, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is looking selectively for support/confirmation.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #186

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 and ethics occurred with my realization that within the ‘religious’ sphere I could seriously/radically think – even raise core questions – without reprisal 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’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #185

[July 2006 journal entry]

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’).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #184

[July 2006 journal entry]

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

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #183

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job represents individuals who have life experiences that move them steadily/harshly from feeling safely positioned in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s center to being on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s boundary or margin. Prior to his personal suffering, 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 in the distance the 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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #182

[July 2006 journal entry]

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

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #181

[July 2006 journal entry]

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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #180

[July 2006 journal entry]

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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #179

[July 2006 journal entry]

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.”

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #178

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz seems to endorse (4:6) the descriptions of Job that are 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’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #177

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 metaphor introduced by Eliphaz)? I have not yet found such indications.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #176

[July 2006 journal entry]

Perhaps ‘it’ (4:5) points to the ‘who is doing this to Job?’ dispute between ‘God’ and the Accuser in the prologue references to ‘touch’. 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 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 -- #175

[July 2006 journal entry]

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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #174

[July 2006 journal entry]

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)? 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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #173

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 the ‘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).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #172

[July 2006 journal entry]

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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #171

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 sufferers’ lament? to their agony? No. Efforts to clarify/explain the breadth and depth of human suffering invariably diminish and/or draw away from a respectful focus on the sufferer/s. Eliphaz apparently intends to comfort the ‘scrapheap’ Job by correcting his thinking. Is this what Job has previously attempted with sufferers? 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 (e.g., the ‘lament psalms’), then the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm holds. If Job’s ‘scrapheap’ thoughts represent radically (i.e., into the root) altered insights into what is true/real, then the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm does not hold.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #170

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 theology that (in)forms their responses? If Job has previously tried to help sufferers through difficulties by defending the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (even 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 sufferers, then the friends are not as capable 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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #169

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz begins by painting a beautiful picture of the very sensitive and careful Job he remembers (4:3-4). Peterson’s translation says Job had “encouraged those who were about to quit” (the RSV’s “strengthened weak hands”), had “put stumbling people on their feet” (the RSV’s “upheld him who was stumbling”), and had 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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #168

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 remain loyal friends 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 “instructed many”, ideas that could have prepared them for what they are now hearing from him? Has the ‘scrapheap’ Job tried to think critically/radically with them? If Job is ‘the greatest’ (as per the prologue to the story/play), I would cast his three close friends as in the top ten. 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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #167

[July 2006 journal entry]

How would Eliphaz – with his first comments (chs. 4-5) in response to Job’s first extended comments (ch. 3) -- 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 at this point sees the ‘scrapheap’ Job as not yet collapsed, as fallen. He sees him reeling, but not yet knocked out.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #166

[July 2006 journal entry]

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. If I were the author, I would have to write such a character into the story/play. 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 and ethics.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #165

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz could be cast as cautious and gentle (i.e., Peterson’s translation has “Would you mind . . .”; the RSV has “If one ventures a word with you, will you be offended?”). Perhaps he could also 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 ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #164

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 theologies have 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?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #163

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 unexpectedly 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’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #162

[July 2006 journal entry]

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 an upper-level undergraduate oral interpretation course in 1974 shortly after my first wife (d. 1987) had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. 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.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #161

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is Peterson’s translation “death has invaded life” (3:26, RSV “but trouble comes”) an appropriate interpretation? Yes. The idea in antiquity was that death actively invaded life and dragged victims into the underworld. Illness and trouble were understood in antiquity to be results of death invading life.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #160

[July 2006 journal entry]

One distinguishing trait of a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality is the absence of such fear and dread. There is no ‘God’ language in this approach to spirituality that leads to the fear and dread the ‘scrapheap’ Job is experiencing. Instead, an awareness or consciousness that does not press one to sift through human experience in order to stay safely at a distance from the depth/breadth of human suffering prompts awe and sober mindedness.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #159

[July 2006 journal entry]

What is the place of fear and dread – very strong moods/assessments -- in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? By the time such is admitted, that which is feared and dreaded is already having deep effect. Think in terms of a continuum that moves from naiveté to wonder to awareness to nervousness to concern to fear and dread. The fear and dread the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerates stem from guilt – i.e., waiting for ‘the other shoe to drop’. Is such fear and dread the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s fear and dread?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #158

[July 2006 journal entry]

Eliphaz (the first of the three close friends to respond) might hear the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s reference to his fear and dread as an admission of guilt. Do the three close friends think something not yet known to them must be going on? Do they see Job’s life before the calamities to have been too good to be true? Do they wonder if ‘God’ has been setting an arrogant Job up for an eventual and complete fall?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #157

[July 2006 journal entry]

I suspect many individuals within the ‘religious’ sphere live with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s fear and dread. They cling to explanations of life experiences offered within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, all the while being haunted by the sense that the paradigm has serious flaws. They are left with a fragile, dishonest, and self-deceiving approach to spirituality and ethics. At one end of the spectrum are those deluded by accepted ‘religious’ T/O paradigm authorities. At the other end of the spectrum are those no longer deluded. Between these ends of the spectrum are those sufficiently aware of and uncomfortable with observable realities to (attempt to) delude or distract themselves.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #156

[July 2006 journal entry]

For another angle, imagine Job and his three close friends having often discussed the subject of human suffering before his tragic circumstances occurred. Human suffering for the ‘scrapheap’ Job is now no longer abstract, no longer an idea, no longer a question. The ‘scrapheap’ Job can no longer walk away from a discussion of the subject. He now embodies the subject. His admitting fear and dread (3:25-26) indicates he knows of others whose plights the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm cannot explain or protect. Is his fear and dread, then, that his life is a frightening anomaly to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? that -- being his own experience -- his plight has sufficient weight to discredit the theology upon which he has based his life?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #155

[July 2006 journal entry]

What might be the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s worst fear/s? Perhaps the loss of ease, quiet, and rest (3:26). If so, what would this say about Job? about the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? about ‘God’? Another possibility might be his realizing, “I do not have life (and, therefore, ‘God’) figured out”, accentuated by his now being among those cast aside on the ‘scrapheap’ as cursed. The accumulating quantity of data calling into question the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is large in number/force and growing. His becoming a victim has built the anomalous data pile to the point of overwhelming the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #154

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job ends his first comments to/before his three close friends with references to “the worst of my fears” and “what I’ve dreaded most” (3:25-26). These comments stand in sharp contrast to the prologue’s presentation of Job. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s critique of conventional ‘wisdom’ has created his dread/fear (i.e., due to now having observed ‘life under the sun’ more radically/indiscriminately than has his three close friends). The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm considers dread/fear to be evidence of faithlessness.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #153

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation “ . . . vomit my anguish” is more vivid than the RSV’s “my groanings are poured out like water” (3:24). Peterson captures well the meaning/image. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s words are like water flowing wildly down a wadi.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #152

[July 2006 journal entry]

Note the dramatic shift from the prologue’s description of Job as ‘hedged about’ (e.g., 1:10) to the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s feeling “hedged in” (3.21) – i.e., a shift from the image of being protected to the image of being trapped/cornered. How does the ‘scrapheap’ Job see ‘God’ blocking all the roads to meaning? How do theologies within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm avoid this charge that ‘God’ blocks a person’s life from having meaning?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #151

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works off the premise that life’s divinely intended/designed sense or meaning is sufficiently clear to establish confidence that the paradigm is reliable. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s experience leads him to the opposite view. He sits on the ‘scrapheap’ frustrated and tortured, with the decision whether or not to reject the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm drawing nearer and nearer.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #150

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job laments -- “What’s the point of life when it doesn’t make sense, when God blocks all the roads to meaning?” (3:23). Peterson’s paraphrase is a bit loose. He does, however, capture the sense quite well. The RSV has “a man whose way is hid”. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s idea/question is -- “Why does a person continue to live when the way is hidden or the person is fenced in? Why would God do such a cruel thing?” This question is dependent on/rooted in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The ‘scrapheap’ Job still thinks at this point that there is sense or meaning to his life, but it is hidden from him. Would disclosure of the prologue’s scenes in the courts of ‘God’ satisfy the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s search for sense or meaning to his plight? I think not. Not far ahead for him is the thought that in fact there is no longer any divinely intended/designed sense or meaning to his life. He then will face a radical (i.e., to the root) decision/threshold – whether or not to conclude that no one’s life has the purpose or the meaning proposed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #149

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job presses -- “Why does God bother giving light to the miserable, . . .” (3:20-22). His statements make vivid how “his suffering was very great” (2:13) – especially his references to those “who want in the worst way to die” (RSV “who long for death”) and “who can’t imagine anything better than death” (RSV “who dig for it more than for hidden treasures”). Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute the survival and continuing existence of every miserable individual directly and intentionally to ‘God’? I think this deduction cannot be avoided. There is obvious relevancy here for the assisted dying issues in the practice of medicine.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #148

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job agonizes, “Why didn’t I die at birth . . .” (3:11ff). It is important to track closely the perceptions of death and dying throughout the story/play. Does Job change his perceptions of death? of the dying process? of the dying experience? Yes. His perceptions change in significant ways as his experience suddenly shifts toward and remains disturbingly similar to the stories the caravan travelers are telling around campfires about the more desperate aspects of the human condition. The ‘scrapheap’ Job experiences firsthand how tragic and ugly suffering/dying can be. Eliphaz (5:26) – true to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- reminds an exasperated ‘scrapheap’ Job the faithful are promised a romanticized, idyllic death.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #147

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re his date of birth, the ‘scrapheap’ Job longs -- “ . . . turn that night into pure nothingness” (3:7). The RSV has “let that night be barren”. Is there a link – philosophical or symbolic – between ‘barren’ and ‘nothingness’? Did Jewish thought in antiquity include the metaphysical concept of ‘nothingness’ (as in existential philosophy)? Koheleth (the Ecclesiastes essay) and the ‘scrapheap’ Job sound ‘existential’ in many ways. Sheol was understood in antiquity to be a fading into nothingness, an eventual nothingness. However, ‘God’ was not thought to have created out of nothingness (ex nihilo creation being a later/Christian extrapolation). Not being inclined toward metaphysical reflection, Jewish thinkers in antiquity apparently did not feel disturbed by the implied dualism of ‘God’ and ‘matter’ (as suggested in the potter and clay metaphor).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #146

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is ‘the day’ to which the ‘scrapheap’ Job refers the day of his conception? Peterson’s translation has “the night of my conception” (3:6). Or is it the day of his delivery (e.g., 3:7, 11)? The Hebrew wording suggests both. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm lead to attributing stillbirths to the intentions and plans of ‘God’ (as 3:16 suggests)? Yes.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #145

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job refers to “those who are good at cursing” (3:8). Who is he asking to curse the day of his birth? What skill do they have? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s lament shifts from third-person to first-person (vs. 11). Is he addressing ‘God’ in part or all of his lament? Is he addressing anyone at all? Or is he saying he would “curse the day of his birth” if he could?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #144

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job “cursed the day of his birth” (3:1). What concretely would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be expecting if indeed his day of birth is cursed? Perhaps he is wishing the day would somehow be skipped over in the calendar. Or perhaps he is wishing that everyone born on that day would be stillborn or die soon after birth. But he is not the only one born on that day. In cursing his day of birth, he curses their day of birth too. The consequences of such a cursing would have befallen them as well as him. This self-centeredness is noticeably parallel to the lack of regard or respect ‘God’ has for those damaged or destroyed around Job in the prologue’s two cycles of calamities. Servants die and no doubt some of the marauding enemies die too. I would cast the prologue Job as near enough to offer aid to some of these sufferers, but still safely distant -- existentially and theologically -- from the harsh realities of suffering until such came to him.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #143

[July 2006 journal entry]

Later in the story/play, the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks of ‘God’ as having no manners (e.g., ‘God’ “snatches”). The prologue makes it no surprise that the ‘scrapheap’ Job would draw this conclusion. I do not think the behavior of ‘God’ (all concepts of ‘God’ in the story/play) can be excused with -- “His ways are not our ways”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #142

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re the intent of Job’s three close friends, Peterson has -- “ . . . to keep company and comfort him” (2:11). Another possibility permitted by the Hebrew wording would be – “to show grief or mourn and to comfort or console”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #141

[July 2006 journal entry]

What could Job do to save his life? The counsel/pressure the ‘scrapheap’ Job receives from his three close friends reinforces the Accuser’s proposition – even to the point of their knowingly counseling/pressuring him to violate his integrity. They press him to trust/hold the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to fall prostrate before ‘God’ begging for mercy (e.g., 8:5). Elihu presses him to consider his plight a divinely engineered opportunity for spiritual refinement. The whirlwind ‘God’ humiliates the ‘scrapheap’ Job without even addressing his plight.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #140

[July 2006 journal entry]

The answers individuals give to “What is more important than saving my life?” reveal each one’s character/integrity. The person for whom saving one’s life trumps all other considerations is very self-centered, ready to manipulate/exploit all others to achieve his/her end. The same is true at the national (foreign policy) level.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #139

[July 2006 journal entry]

Was the Accuser’s counter argument that “a human would do anything to save his life” (2:4) an accepted truism in antiquity? Is it now? I suspect the distribution of individuals would be weighted heavily toward the ‘do anything’ end of the spectrum. Medical decision-making in life-threatening situations is but one illuminating place to look for evidence. A demonstration of the validity of the Accuser’s assessment can also be seen clearly at the foreign policy level. How does the Accuser’s proposition fit with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Would ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theologies – which are centered by the eventual reduction of all life circumstances to divine will -- justify/encourage attempts by adherents to save their lives? No. For such would finally be seen as defiance and weak faith.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #138

[July 2006 journal entry]

I would cast the prologue’s celestial scene with ‘God’ surrounded by an angelic host as similar to an ancient royal court. Anyone entering a monarch’s presence had to be introduced and had to have some valid reason to intrude. The prologue’s celestial scene should be cast as a monarch receiving reports of the outcome of battles or as a medical school dean or department chair or as politicians (especially federal) (or perhaps as a Wizard of Id!). The point – the monarch and, therefore, ‘God’ have no intimate or direct familiarity with what is happening ‘below’. From the ‘scrapheap’, Job most often seems to be thinking, “If I could only get his attention . . .” or “If I could only get through the bureaucracy . . .” -- suggesting he wants to hold to a view of ‘God’ analogous to Queen Elizabeth behind the scenes as the English Puritans were with her approval systematically contained/crushed all the while thinking the Queen above the bureaucracy was their ally. The whirlwind ‘God’ enters the story minus a royal court entourage and appears to have more immediate knowledge of happenings on earth (though there is no suggestion the whirlwind ‘God’ has any interest in or empathy toward human suffering).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #137

[July 2006 journal entry]

When, in the development of Jewish thought in antiquity, did the pre/nonscientific cosmology (1:6ff) assumed in the story/play Job – e.g., angels, ‘God’ enthroned, an Accuser, celestial beings ‘checking things out on the earth’, ‘God’ causing or permitting things to happen on earth, . . . – become presupposed or taken for granted? With these cosmological presuppositions, how does ‘God’ know of the tragedies described in the prologue? Does the wording in the prologue suggest any divine empathy for the victims? I do not detect it.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #136

[July 2006 journal entry]

What does it mean for the name ‘God’ to be blessed (1:21)? I see one answer in the story/play’s prologue with the messengers cycling through the royal court with reports that end with accolades. This ‘blessing’ – which is characteristic of liturgies (e.g., hymns, prayers, sermons) within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – reminds me of the conniving daughters in King Lear. Such honoring does not accurately or honestly reflect the depth and breadth of human suffering.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #135

[July 2006 journal entry]

The introduction of Job’s children in the prologue creates cause for pause re Job and parenting. Hosting party after party is not what I want my or other’s first thought about my children to be. Some have suggested that Job’s children feasted only on each one’s birthday. But the text could easily refer to round after round of feasting, suggesting that they were quite spoiled and living off their father’s wealth.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #134

[July 2006 journal entry]

Would the wealth attributed to Job in the prologue have appeared exceptional in antiquity? Yes, unless Job is cast as a monarch. Five hundred yoke of oxen imply large fields. And the camels would be for show if the story/play is cast in a time when camels had not yet been domesticated. What would be an equivalent description in current United States terms? Perhaps a Bill Gates. Job is ‘filthy rich’. What should we deduce from this description and from hints scattered throughout the text re Job’s lifestyle? I would cast him as living a pampered life even excessive for (D)euteronomic promises of blessing, . . . beyond a gated community, more like a compound. I would cast him and his family as fenced in by servants and by the walls of a grand estate. Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, the explanation/justification would be – “If Job is so incredibly blessed, then he must be incredibly good/righteous”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #133

[July 2006 journal entry]

Who does Job – before, during, and after his ‘scrapheap’ experience -- consider his neighbor (i.e., “love your neighbor”).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #132

[July 2006 journal entry]

Does ‘hate evil’ necessarily imply ‘love good’? The short version of the story/play (i.e., prologue plus epilogue) does not specifically present Job as compassionate or as loving good. The prologue does suggest an intense effort by Job not to be in the presence of or dirtied by evil. The heated exchanges with his three close friends in the extended version of the story/play do suggest he confronted evil with good. The Accuser’s wager raises doubt that Job’s hating evil and his loving good are unconditional behaviors.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #131

[July 2006 journal entry]

A rewriting idea re the story/play – to write Koheleth (who delivers the monologue in the Ecclesiastes essay) into the story/play as a fourth and late-arriving friend of Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #130

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation says Job “hated evil with a passion” (1:1-5). The Hebrew wording literally says that Job “turned away from evil”. Does Job hate with a passion the consequences that befell the unnamed victims in the prologue tragedies? Are there indications scattered through the story/play that would make concrete what this passionate hatred of evil would lead Job to do? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job vary the nuance for ‘evil’ in the course of the story/play?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #129

[July 2006 journal entry]

What does Job consider to be ‘evil’? The two prologue references (1:1 and 2:10) use the same term. Job might define ‘evil’ in several ways. He might think of breaking moral and/or ritual laws. (The Testament of Job – in circulation in the time of ‘Jesus’ and the beginning of Christianity -- draws particular attention to the latter.) Or he might think of not being faithful in relationships (e.g., not caring for the oppressed). The ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends should be cast as sifting through all such ideas of evil in their efforts to explain Job’s plight.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #128

[July 2006 journal entry]

A staging question -- Should the three close friends be staged as all present for all the heated exchanges with the ‘scrapheap’ Job?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #127

[July 2006 journal entry]

‘Suffering’ (2:13) also merits a word study. The Hebrew word is rooted in the experience of pain -- mental or physical. In the story/play, the ‘scrapheap’ Job (14:22, 16:6) and Eliphaz (2:13, 5:18) use the term.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #126

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation has ‘trouble’ where the RSV has ‘evil’ (2:11). Is Peterson’s interpretation appropriate? helpful? The Hebrew word brings to mind misery, distress, injury. The word can be used to refer to moral evil as well as to life troubles. Peterson’s ‘trouble’ may be too mild, more neutral than ‘evil’. The RSV’s ‘evil’ assesses Job’s experiences to be indeed tragic.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #125

[July 2006 journal entry]
‘Friend’ is another key word in the story/play. The word occurs thirteen times (2:11, 6:14, 6:27, 12:4, 16:20, 16:21, 17:5, 19:21, 30:29, 31:9, 32:3, 35:4, 42:7, 42:10). The term is used only by the narrator (2:11, 42;7, 42:10), by Elihu (32:3, 35:4), or by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (all other occurrences). For the disappointed ‘scrapheap’ Job, his three close friends are not friends ‘in the singular’ (i.e., the phrase used by Bonhoeffer and Bethge to describe the liberty and confidence essential to their special friendship) because they are not truly present with him as he thinks and speaks radically (i.e., to root) about the reversals in his life’s fortune. For Elihu (who appears to be a character added later to the story/play) they are not true friends because they fail to defend the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm properly and forcefully in their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #124

[July 2006 journal entry]

Christian variations on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm from the beginning have continued the contractual agreement and preferential treatment models. However, the proposition the Gospel of Matthew attributes to ‘Jesus’ (i.e., that “God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust”) introduces a perspective driven by neither of these models, suggesting that ‘Jesus’ – if distinguished from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – might bring the missing character into the story/play Job (i.e., a character who can be with Job without further harming him). What is the radical edge here? Is ‘Jesus’ offering one more variation on the whirlwind ‘God’ in the story/play Job? Or is ‘Jesus’ weaving together the Psalms’ “the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases” refrain with the inclusive/universal position in the debate re whether the ‘God’ of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should be understood to be the ‘God’ of the nations?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #123

[July 2006 journal entry]

The (D)euteronomic theology then/now characteristic of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm encouraged/s a contractual expectation that righteousness guaranteed/s blessing and unrighteousness guaranteed/s cursing. The wisdom proposed in Proverbs and affirmed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm taught/teaches that observation demonstrates the righteous have reason to expect preferential treatment in life situations. Both these perspectives – contractual agreement and preferential treatment -- are found in the prologue to the story/play Job. Throughout the heated exchanges, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends become increasingly strident in defending the contractual agreement model. The ‘scrapheap’ Job attacks both the contractual agreement model and the preferential treatment model. The whirlwind ‘God’ later in the story/play does not accept being held accountable as in the contractual agreement model. Nor does the whirlwind ‘God’ claim to have been preferentially attentive to Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #122

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is the foolishness with which Job charges his wife (2:10) an echo of the wisdom recorded in Proverbs? Is Job’s response to his wife consistent with the wisdom promoted in Proverbs? with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? The wisdom recorded in Proverbs and the theologies found wihtin the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm were/are rooted in ‘the fear of the Lord’ or ‘the fear of the Almighty’. The risk in approaching a monarch as pictured in the story of Esther is analogous.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #121

[July 2006 journal entry]

“Curse God and die” exposes the fine print of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’. By analogy Job’s wife appears to be saying, “Just give up and let the king finish the job”. Every other character with a speaking part in the story/play -- including ‘God’ and the Accuser -- thinks, speaks, and acts within the cosmological and theological assumptions/boundaries of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The differences among the characters illustrate that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerates a limited range of variations on core themes. Job’s wife alone is so disgusted with viewing the tragedies as of/from ‘God’ that she is ready to reject both the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and its ‘God’. She certainly no longer sees this ‘God’ as worthy of worship or service. It would be valuable to hear more from her in the story/play. Eliphaz tries to challenge the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, but he quickly moves back to defending the paradigm. Bildad and Zophar do not go as near the edge as does Eliphaz.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #120

[July 2006 journal entry]

As the heated exchanges with his three close friends begin and escalate, the integrity to which the ‘scrapheap’ Job holds becomes more his consistency (even in pushing his pre-tragedy ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to its logical end -- i.e., questioning the integrity of ‘God’). The result – the ‘scrapheap’ Job claims to be ready to sacrifice the reputation and status available to him within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm rather than to surrender his integrity.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #119

[July 2006 journal entry]

The story/play opens with ‘God’ attributing integrity to Job. The prologue references to Job’s integrity appear to be tied to his allegiance to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. In other words, integrity in the prologue means being faithful to and consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The prologue also implies confidence -- over against the Accuser’s charge -- that ‘God’ too has integrity. The Accuser turns the assessment of Job’s integrity toward Job’s motivations. Job’s wife questions the integrity of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s reassurance that all experiences are from ‘God’ and therefore, are ultimately good. (Macleish, in his award-winning Broadway play J.B., takes this position re Job’s wife.) Job responds to his wife by attributing evil as well as good to ‘God’. He does not deviate from the view that either ‘God’ causes evil or does not care that evil exists.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #118

[July 2006 journal entry]

How should the statements of Job’s wife be expressed/interpreted on stage -- “Still holding on to your precious integrity, are you? Curse God and be done with it!” (2:9). It is important to trace the meanings, references, and nuances associated with the concept ‘integrity’ in the story/play. The Hebrew root form for ‘integrity’ occurs five times in the story/play (more times in Job than in any other writing in Jewish scripture). In the story/play, the word is used by ‘God’ (2:3), Job’s wife (2:9), and the ‘scrapheap’ Job (26:11, 27:5, 31:6). Job’s three close friends do not use the term.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #117

[July 2006 journal entry]

The prologue has ‘God’ complain to the Accuser, “You tried to trick me into destroying him” (2:3). The RSV has “without cause”. Is the word ‘destroy’ to be taken literally? materially? spiritually? The Hebrew word means to swallow up. Is the statement -- “You tried to trick me into destroying him?” -- suggesting that ‘God’ has violated the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in that there is, by the admission of ‘God’, no cause? Or, again, is this admission pointing to a fatal flaw/conflict at the core of that paradigm -- i.e., all that happens cannot be attributed to ‘the will of God’ without either attributing evil to ‘God’ or calling evil good?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #116

[July 2006 journal entry]

Job worships ‘God’ (1:20). A word study re ‘worship’ is in order here. Is the term ‘worship’ linked in any way with fear? The Hebrew term for worship builds on the image of bowing. To worship is to bow down, to prostrate oneself, to recognize the superiority of the one worshiped. From a ‘scrapheap’ or ‘non-religious’ perspective, this posture deteriorates into a dog’s rolling onto his/her back in submission analogy. Given Job’s nobility/aristocracy as well as his honesty, he predictably resists rolling onto his back like a submissive dog. What about those not so privileged?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #115

[July 2006 journal entry]

The “did not charge God with wrong” and “did not sin with his lips” (2:10) references to Job’s restraint should be on the list of references/concepts in the prologue (along with the references to integrity, hedge, fear, whirlwind, curse, . . .) that are developed in surprising/intense directions in the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #114

[July 2006 journal entry]

For the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, what appears/feels evil must finally be considered in reality good because the ‘God’ behind the events must be exonerated as only doing good. From a ‘scrapheap’ or ‘non-religious’ perspective, these events and experiences are essentially evil in that the victims are disrespected and have their worth/dignity assaulted. I find no compelling argument in the story/play that Job’s suffering/misery is just. He is humiliated. So many others are victimized. If there is intent, it is a mean, cruel, sadistic. Shifting blame to the prologue’s Accuser finally breaks down within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, unless some form of metaphysical dualism is adopted. But that would contradict the core of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (i.e., the unlimited and unquestioned sovereignty of ‘God’).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #113

[July 2006 journal entry]
Does Job’s premise in the prologue that every experience (evil as well as good) comes from ‘the hand of God’ (2:9-10) stem from a fatal flaw/conflict at the core of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes. The conclusion that ‘God’ is responsible for all human experiences (or that all human experiences – including the worst of human suffering/misery -- have inherently benevolent intent/value) seems unavoidable within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, given the language/views of divine sovereignty permitted/encouraged by the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. As suggested in Job’s prologue comments, any essential distinction between good and evil disappears within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #111

[July 2006 journal entry]

A word study is in order re ‘evil’ in the story/play and in the larger context surrounding the story/play. Job does not point -- either in the prologue or in the heated exchanges with his three close friends -- to the prologue’s Accuser as an independent, separate, and/or primary source for evil. In the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, ‘God’ is not just a monarch with unquestioned power. In the paradigm’s (D)euteronomic form trusted by Job and his three close friends, ‘God’ is expected to act/rule as a good/benevolent monarch who protects/rewards the righteous and who punishes/defeats the unrighteous. The author of the early Christian letter James extended his defense of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to the point of arguing that nothing from ‘God’ could be evil or stem from malevolent motives. All texts/writers in Jewish scripture and in Christian scripture are much nearer to James than to the ‘scrapheap’ perspective in the story/play Job or to the Ecclesiastes essay. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is being driven away from the confidence and security in divine providence promised by the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The heated exchanges with his three close friends leave him in the untenable position of concluding that ‘God’ (as he has to this point understood the term ‘God’) is capable of engaging in profoundly evil actions with sobering/frightening malevolent motives toward human beings. By untenable I mean that the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thinking must keep moving because this position leaves him no way within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm either to respect/honor ‘God’ or to lament before ‘God’ in anticipation of deliverance/relief.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #110

[July 2006 journal entry]

What, from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, is evil about the violent events and devastating experiences recounted in the prologue? What criteria for distinguishing good from evil are common to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? What makes an event/experience evil? Koheleth (in Ecclesiastes essay) uses blunt terms such as ‘offensive’, ‘tragic’, ‘grievously wrong’ in reference to human suffering/misery. The ‘scrapheap’ Job insists on similarly radical (i.e., to the root) interpretations of human suffering/misery. Are such interpretations of human suffering/misery found in other parts of Jewish scripture or in Christian scripture? Are such interpretations of human suffering/misery permitted within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? by ‘Jesus’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #109

[July 2006 journal entry]

The frightening calamities (1:13-19) -- from the Sabeans’ violence to destructive lightning to the Chaldeans’ deadly aggression to the terrible storm -- are all attributed to ‘God’ in the story/play. The same explanation occurs re Job’s humiliating afflictions in the second cycle of calamities (2:1-10). Job, in his first lines in the prologue, accounts for the calamities with “the Lord gave” and “the Lord has taken away” (1:20-21). The narrator makes the point that the prologue Job “did not charge God with wrong” (1:22), apparently meaning Job does not accuse ‘God’ of injustice or malevolence when he attributes the calamities to ‘God’. In response to his humiliating afflictions, the prologue Job speaks of receiving good and evil from ‘God’ (revealing that he considers the wave of calamities as well as his personal afflictions to be ‘evil’). Yet the narrator repeats that Job “did not sin with his lips” (2:10). Are Job’s two responses in the prologue acceptable to/within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #108

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is there any sense of ‘friend’ (as in Peterson’s translation) in the Hebrew word translated ‘servant’ (RSV)? The Hebrew word can imply a special relationship (e.g., references to ‘my servants the prophets’, Moses, Joshua, angels, the patriarchs). The Hebrew word can refer to an acquaintance, to a fellow-citizen, or simply to another person. I think of ‘friend’ or ‘servant’ in the prologue description of Job as ‘confidant with influence’. I find no sense of humility or of being ‘among the least of these’ or of ‘taking a lower seat’. I would cast Job in the story/play as aristocratic, as nobility. He has liberties and privileges, even before ‘God’, others do not have.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #107

[July 2006 journal entry]

It seems a contradiction to adhere to and advocate a democratic political structure for society and yet to maintain an approach to spirituality/theology that depends/draws on the language/imagery characteristic of a monarchical political structure. It also seems a contradiction to adhere to and live by a modern/scientific view of nature and yet to maintain an approach to spirituality/theology that is inseparable from a pre/non-scientific view of nature.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #106

[July 2006 journal entry]

Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as represented in the story/play Job, ‘God’ must remain unsullied from corruption, removed from the taint of his creation/creatures, and, therefore, contacted only through such worship media as sacrifice and prayer. Think in terms of the distance/barriers between a monarch and the population. A monarch does not tolerate being questioned. The spectrum for the population under a monarchy runs from bowing passively to confronting a corrupt monarch to rejecting royalty of any sort.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #105

[Explanatory Note] The phrase ‘from the scrapheap’ (the defining perspective for me in the story/play Job), the phrase ‘life under the sun’ (the defining perspective for me in the Ecclesiastes essay), and the phrases ‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’/‘non-religious’ (the defining perspectives for me in Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence) lead to the center/heart of the perspective on spirituality and ethics I have been intentionally pursuing since the early 1970s. The journal entries (1992-present) I am sharing via this website constitute my most unfiltered attempt to understand this experience. My understanding and use of the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay have matured significantly with the opportunity -- in twice-monthly discussions 1999-2006 with a Hebrew language/literature specialist friend -- to present/test the results from my sustained/intense meditation (analogous to attending the same Broadway play several times each week year after year) on the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay. I kept detailed notes from these discussions. Each discussion was conducted in tutorial fashion, with specific attention to my specialist friend’s judgment whether the Hebrew text permits/tolerates my appropriation of the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay as I have attempted to stay on a ‘scrapheap’/‘life under the sun’/‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’/‘non-religious’ path. He has freely shared his expertise with the Hebrew language and Wisdom Literature. I have disciplined myself not to press him to agree with my conclusions or with the associated approach to spirituality and ethics. I accept full responsibility and accountability for the ideas that have withstood the scrutiny/pressure of this crucible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #104

[September 2006 journal entry]

The story/play assumes a cosmology in which ‘God’ is ‘out there’, in which the Accuser and other angelic messengers are viewed as coming in/out of a celestial chamber ‘out there’, . . . (cf.1:6ff and many similar places in the story/play). How critical is this pre/non-scientific cosmology to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? I would argue it is essential to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, a necessity that becomes increasingly evident as one scans the 17^th-century forward theological spectrum from ‘liberal’ across to ‘fundamentalist’. The assumed cosmology in the story/play is absolutely critical re the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s perspective on divine sovereignty.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #103

[September 2006 journal entry]

I find it thought provoking to associate the ‘scrapheap’ Job with the story of the prophet Nathan before King David, with Shostakovich before Stalin, with a concentration camp survivor. What would these associations imply re ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?