26. Et postquam corpus meum, hoc inquam, consumptum fuerit, E carne mea adspiciam Deum.

27. Quem ego visurus sum mihi;

Oculi spectabunt mei, non alieni.

In the 25th verse, (the former clause of which he makes equivalent to xvi. 19. where Job declares that he hath a witness in heaven,) he considers the speaker as avowing his belief that God will continue to survive him, and that he who permanently endures will stand by him and show a care for his remains. This, says he, and what follows, are intended as a reply to the unjust suspicions and accusations of his friends, who pronounced him a despiser of GOD suffering under the merited punishment of his impiety, in opposition to which charges he makes this solemn profession of his faith. So far from disregarding God or accusing him of injustice, he is firmly persuaded that after his death he will appear to vindicate him, and the eternal existence of his vindicator constitutes his consolation.

The manner in which this German critic expresses himself respecting the belief in a resurrection being entertained by Job, is worthy of attention, and particularly as Dr. Jahn seems to consider it as a doctrine unknown in the patriarchal age. With this view the following passage is translated. "Job declares in the clearest terms the hope which he constantly cherished that he should see God with the eyes of his restored body. Many interpreters indeed, both of our own and of former ages, deny that those who lived at the time when this book was written entertained such a hope as that which this passage expresses according to the interpretation of it which I have given, and H. P. C. Henke* has shown that many fathers of the church, who treat of the resurrection, either entirely omit this text, or explain it in reference to Job's restoration to his former happy condition. But there is no reason to deny that Job cherished the hope which the simple sense of his words exhibits, that the sleep of his death would not be eternal, but that at some future time God himself would awaken him, and that God would not cease to watch over him a though dead, and after his restoration to life would receive him with kindness and affection. Since this oracle respecting the Gol exhibits the most confident hope and unshaken trust, it may be argued. that as Job did not expect any termination of his distresses nor any rest in the present world, and still cherished an undoubted hope of complete deliverance through the Goel, he must have had in mind a future judgment, a final resurrection, and a renewal of all things." ROSEN. Schol. in Job. Edit. Sec. 1824, p. 479-481. Tr.]

* Narratio critica de interpretatione loci Job. xix. 25–27. Helmstad. 1783, 4to.

§ 192. Of Job's place of residence.

The country in which Job is said to have lived is called ry, Uz, i. 1., which some suppose to mean Idumea, or a part of it, deriving the name from Uz, the grandson of Seir, mentioned in Gen. xxxvi. 28. Others think it to be the delightful and much celebrated valley of Damascus, the inhabitants of which, descendants of Shem, are mentioned under the name of Uz in Gen. x. 22, 23., and are called by Ptolemy Ozita or Uzita, Geog. Lib. V. This valley is no doubt to be understood wherever the word occurs without an adjunct, and especially where the connected circumstances suit, which is the case in this book. For Job is not only represented as a pious and virtuous man, but as in the full enjoyment of temporal happiness, to which a pleasant residence contributes not a little. Besides, this situation would enable him to carry on agricultural pursuits to a great extent, to support his numerous flocks in the neighbouring desert of Arabia, and like the Nomads, sometimes, as he tells us he did, to enter a city, meaning Damascus. Here also, in Auranitis are spacious caves, which even in the age of Josephus were occupied by fierce Troglodytæ, of whom Job makes mention.On the other hand, it cannot be proved on sufficient evidence that a part of Idumea was called Uz from the grand-on of Seir of the same name. For Jeremiah, xxv. 20, 21., distinguishes the king of Uz from the king of Idumea, and in Lament. iv. 21. the "daughter of Edom dwelling in the land of Uz," is a colony of Edomites who had settled in the valley of Uz, which had been depopulated by the Assyrians. Nor were Job's friends, with the exception of Eliphaz, Edomites. But if they had been, they might still have received intelligence of the distressing afflictions of so distinguished an inhabitant of the valley of Damascus. Besides, they were Nomads, with no settled habitation.[a]

(a) EICHHORN. (Einleit. § 639.) is decidedly in favour of fixing Job's residence in Idumea. He adduces highly probable evidence that this was the country of Job's friends, and shows that the contents of the book and the customs which it introduces agree with his opinion. Idumea, in the earliest ages, was distinguished for its wise men, and sen'tences of Arabian wisdom flow from the mouths of Job and his friends. The Jordan is represented as a principal stream, as it was to the Edom

ites; and chiefs, such as those of Edom, are frequently mentioned. The Alexandrine version places Job's residence on the borders of Idumea and Arabia. See the addition at the end of the last chapter. It is not probable, as Eichhorn remarks, that Job's friends lived at any remote distance from himself. He observes too, that the scenes and imagery are not Syriac, but for the most part Arabic and occasionally Egyptian, and that the exposition given by our author of Lament. iv. 21, which is that of Michaelis aiso, is founded on historical conjecture, and not supported by the structure of the Hebrew. He does not take any notice however of Jer. xxv. 20, 21, where Uz is distinguished from Edom or Idumea.—— Roseumüller rejects both his opinion and that of Jahn, and places the scene of the poem in the northern part of Arabia Deserta, bordering on the Euphrates and Mesopotamia. See his Prolegomena in Jobum, Vol. V. Ed. Sec. Lips. 1824.—The authorities and part of the evidence in favour of Eichhorn's opinion, which, upon the whole, appears to be the most probable of the three, are stated at some length by MAGEE, Disc. on Atonement, Note LIX. Vol. II. p. 56. s.. and HORNE, Introd. Vol. IV. pp. 72. s. Tr.]

§ 193. Of the time in which Job lived.

The age in which the author of the book places Job may be drawn from what he says of the friends. For the tribe of Shuah, from which Bildad was descended, sprang from the posterity of Abraham, Gen. xxv. 1, 2.; and that of Teman, which gave birth to Eliphaz, was of the family of Esau Gen. xxxvi. 15. The age therefore in which Job lived, is not only considerably below the time of Abraham, but even that of Esau. Yet it must not be placed too far below the time of Esau for nothing occurs in the work respecting the famous exode of the Hebrews from Egypt, and Job attained the age of 200 years, whereas shortly after the exode the period of human life rarely extended beyond 70 or 80 years. Job therefore seems to be put in the age immediately preceding the removal of the Israelites from Egypt. This is confirmed by certain other marks, such as the quoting of ancient poems, by which in remote ages wisdom was preserved. viii. 8—18. xii. 12–25. xv 17—35.; the name up, kesita,

applied to a certain quantity of money, xlii. 11, as in Gen. xxxiii. 19; and the mentioning of no other species of idolatry but the worship of the sun and moon, xxxi. 26-28.[a]

(a) See this subject more fully examined in' MAGEE, ubi supra, p. 58 ---63, and HORNE, Introd. IV. 67. ss., who both arrive at the same conclusion with the author. Tr.]

As c. xix. 9. does not refer to a diadem and royal vesture, but is simply expressive of humiliation and grief, there is no reason to consider Job and his friends as kings. This is at variance with other circumstances in the book. 1) Job does not lose a kingdom, but children, servants and flocks.

2) He had no army to pursue the robbers. 3) He is accused by his friends of criminal harshness towards his servants, not of tyranny to his subjects. 4) Job speaks of his treatment of his servants, but says nothing of his conduct to his subjects. 5) He mentions kings, c. iii. 14. ix. 24. but does not compare himself with them.

But on the other hand Job does not appear as a subject, for neither he nor his friends speak of his behaviour towards the king; on the contrary when Job enters into the gate of the city, the accustomed place of judgment and resort of loiterers, he takes the most elevated station, and his opinion is sought. The numerous flocks and extensive husbandry of Job show, that he was a chief among the nomads, who at the same time carried on agricultural pursuits; a powerful man indeed, but by no means equal to Abraham.

That Job's disease was the scabbed or black leprosy I have shown in my Archæologie, I. Th. II. B. § 230. S. 381-384.* Compare also the description of this disease in HENSLER'S Geschichte des Abendländischen Aussatzes, S. 47, 52, 55-59.

§ 195.

The Book of Job is the work of one author.

The parts of the book of Job are so intimately connected that they cannot be separated without violence. The introduction supplies us with the necessary information relating to Job and his friends, shows the writer's design, and points at a distance, as it were, to the end of

* [For an account of the disease, see the Archæology, UPHAM's translation, § 188, 189. Tr.]

Job's calamities related in the conclusion. This again refers to the introduction. All the discourses proceed in a regular order. Those who ascribe the introduction or conclusion, or discourses of Elihu to some other writer,[a] urge the difference of style. But in the introduction and conclusion the author designedly uses the plain style of prose, as it was not his intention to deliver his own discourses in poetry, but only those of his characters. The use of the name JEHOVAH in the prose parts, while it never occurs in the discussion,* only proves that in the one a Hebrew is the narrator, and in the other the speakers are Arabians to whom the name was foreign. The peculiarity observable in the discourse of Elihu is to be attributed to the skill of the author, who had the address to distinguish the youth by the character of his speech.Besides, by the removal of those parts a work of extraordinary elegance is injured. Without the introduction the reader knows not who Job and his friends were, and why so many deep afflictions had befallen the former. The speech of Elihu affords a transition from the last words of Job to the discourse of GOD, for which it prepares the reader. The conclusion is necessary to inform us what became of Job.—But why is no mention made of Elihu, either in the introduction, or in the discourse of God, or in the conclusion?'--As he did not come with the other friends, he could not be mentioned in the introduction which relates their visit. As he did not speak until all were silent and received no reply from any one, there was no occasion to mention him in the several discourses. In that of God and in the conclusion, he is passed over in silence as an orator who in a multitude of words had laboriously said nothing that had not been already uttered by others, except the single remark, that God urges sinners to self-examination and repentance by dreams, by messengers or angels, and by calamitous events; and even this had in effect been said by the others, although in different language.

(a) DE WETTE, Einleit. § 287, with some other German writers of less note, deny the genuineness of the speech of Elihu. The same persons doubt the genuineness of the introduction and conclusion, or as they term them, prologue and epilogue, of the book. Tr.]

* [In xii. 9. the word has been introduced by the error of some transcriber.}